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 appellant, a Doordarshan employee, had a long-running pay-scale dispute with his employer that led to contempt proceedings in the Patna High Court, which were dropped after the respondents filed a show-cause affidavit. Believing that affidavit contained false statements, the appellant filed a private criminal complaint against the Doordarshan officials for giving false evidence under Section 193 IPC, which a magistrate initially admitted, but the High Court, in revision, quashed the magistrate's order for taking cognizance.
The Supreme Court examined the interplay between Section 193 IPC (false evidence) and Section 195 of the CrPC, which bars courts from taking cognizance of certain offences, including giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding, except on a written complaint by the court itself, not a private party. Relying on its own precedent in M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana, the Court held that offences under Section 195(1)(b)(i), which covers Section 193 IPC, can never be prosecuted on a private complaint; only the court in which the alleged false evidence was given can initiate such a prosecution under Section 340 CrPC. The appeal was dismissed, though the Court set aside the costs the High Court had separately imposed on the appellant.
A citizen cannot personally file a criminal complaint alleging someone lied under oath or in an affidavit before a court, only that same court can authorise such a prosecution; the correct remedy is to apply to the court itself under Section 340 of the CrPC, not file a private complaint before a magistrate.
