Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreGarg, Managing Director of Ruchira Papers Ltd., had an ongoing business relationship with Tyagi's firm, ID Packaging. After several cheques from Tyagi were dishonoured, Tyagi was convicted under the NI Act, his defence that the amount had already been paid via separate demand drafts having been rejected by the criminal courts. Tyagi then filed a fresh FIR against Garg alleging that Garg had fraudulently encashed some of those very cheques despite having already received payment through the demand drafts: a cheating charge the High Court refused to quash.
The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against Garg. It held that the finding already recorded by the criminal courts in the earlier Section 138 NI Act case, that the demand drafts related to other liabilities and not the cheques in question, was binding on the parties in this later prosecution, applying the principle that res judicata operates in criminal proceedings when there has been a final adjudication on merits (as in Pritam Singh, a three-judge bench ruling the Court held prevails over later two-judge bench decisions to the contrary). Separately, the Court held that since the alleged cheating was attributed to the company's conduct, the company itself needed to be made an accused before its director could be prosecuted individually, per the three-judge bench ruling in Aneeta Hada.
A finding conclusively made by a criminal court on a specific factual issue binds the same parties in any later criminal case on that same issue, and a company must be named as an accused before criminal proceedings for its alleged wrongdoing can be maintained against its director or officer alone.
