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 moreA detenu's detention order under the COFEPOSA Act (preventive detention for smuggling-related activities) was quashed by the Madras High Court on the ground that the order did not specify a fixed period of detention. The High Court relied on an older two-judge Supreme Court decision (Bhiryani) and a related Madras High Court ruling, both holding that silence on the detention period was fatal to such orders. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, the detention period itself had already lapsed, but the Tamil Nadu Government still wanted the legal position corrected.
The Supreme Court noted that the two-judge decision in Bhiryani, on which the High Court relied, had already been overruled by a later three-judge bench in T. Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu, which held that COFEPOSA does not require specifying a detention period: the absence of a specified period simply means detention runs for the maximum period allowed by law. Since the High Court's reasoning rested entirely on the overruled Bhiryani position, its judgment quashing the detention order was set aside, and the detention order was formally revived (though practically moot since the detention period had already expired). The Court clarified the correct legal position for future cases even though no practical relief followed, and disposed of the appeal.
A detention order under preventive-detention laws like COFEPOSA is not automatically invalid merely because it does not state a specific time period: in the law's silence, detention is understood to run for the maximum period the statute allows.
