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 moreDev Raj, a 50-year-old employee of the Punjab State Power Corporation, was killed on 13 May 2015 when a bus collided with his scooter and its driver fled the scene. His widow, two sons, and a married daughter sought Rs. 50 lakh in compensation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded roughly Rs. 24.36 lakh, and on cross-appeals the High Court raised it slightly to Rs. 24.44 lakh, but excluded the two adult sons and the married daughter as "dependants," applying a steeper 50% deduction on the theory that they were not dependent on the deceased.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to exclude the major sons and married daughter as legal representatives entitled to compensation, relying on its earlier ruling in National Insurance Co. v. Birender that such relatives can claim compensation irrespective of full financial dependency, especially where they live with and are not self-sufficient of the deceased. Recalculating the award using the standard Pranay Sethi formula (30% future prospects, correct 1/4th deduction, multiplier of 13), the Court raised the total compensation to Rs. 37,80,681, along with interest as originally awarded by the Tribunal.
Adult, married, or working children of an accident victim are not automatically disqualified from claiming compensation merely because they are not financially dependent. Courts must look at whether they were actually self-sufficient before excluding them.
