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 moreMold-Tek Packaging sued S.D. Containers in the Commercial Court at Indore for infringing its registered container and lid designs. S.D. Containers counter-claimed for cancellation of those designs and, since Indian law requires such cancellation disputes to go to a High Court, applied to transfer the suit. The District Judge transferred the case to the Calcutta High Court, but the Madhya Pradesh High Court set that transfer aside, holding the Commercial Court at Indore itself was competent to decide the whole dispute.
The Supreme Court held that once a defendant raises a design-cancellation defence in an infringement suit under Section 22(4) of the Designs Act, 2000, the transfer of that suit to a High Court is virtually automatic ("a ministerial act") and the trial court loses jurisdiction to decide the cancellation question itself, so the Madhya Pradesh High Court was wrong to hold that the Commercial Court at Indore could retain and decide the case. However, the Court agreed that Calcutta was the wrong destination since no part of the dispute's cause of action arose there; the correct forum was the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, where the plaintiff had actually filed suit. The High Court's order was therefore set aside and the matter remitted to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, to decide the underlying suit (including the design-cancellation question) on its merits.
In a design-infringement lawsuit, if the defendant challenges the validity of the registered design itself, the law requires the case to move from the trial court up to the relevant High Court, but it must go to the High Court connected to where the dispute actually arose, not just any High Court a party prefers.
