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 moreThe petitioner filed a writ petition directly in the Supreme Court alleging that a named individual illegally held multiple petrol/diesel dealerships across Uttar Pradesh through relatives and associates (contrary to licensing rules), and separately raising concerns about adulteration of kerosene and other fuels sold through the public distribution system. The Court had earlier ordered a fact-finding inquiry by a Joint Secretary-level government officer into the dealership allegations, and had asked the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to clarify the technical and regulatory steps taken against fuel adulteration.
On the dealership allegations, the Court noted that the government's inquiry had not reached any conclusive finding, and held that determining whether dealerships were being held "benami" (in others' names to hide true ownership) was a factual question for the concerned oil companies to examine, not something the Supreme Court could resolve under Article 32 without those oil companies even being parties to the case. On the adulteration issue, the Court simply recorded the Ministry's detailed affidavit describing existing anti-adulteration measures (marker systems, surprise inspections, automated "No Automation No Operation" outlets, GPS tracking of tank trucks, etc.) and treated the matter as one of ongoing government policy already being addressed. The Court also noted, without relying on it to decide the case, the second respondent's claim that the petition was politically motivated, being linked to an electoral rivalry, and that an identical PIL had already been dismissed by the Allahabad High Court. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, leaving the petitioner free to take her material to the relevant oil companies.
The Supreme Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 32 is not well-suited to resolving disputed factual questions (like whether a dealership is secretly held by someone else) when the entities actually responsible for deciding that issue, here, the oil companies, are not even parties to the case; such grievances are better pursued through the appropriate regulatory or administrative channel.
