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, co-founder of a film production company, had an FIR lodged against him by a media-financing firm under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for concealing a design to commit an offence, criminal breach of trust, and cheating, arising from what was essentially an oral commercial financing agreement. When the appellant sought quashing of the FIR before the Allahabad High Court, that Court instead directed him to pay Rs. 25 lakh as a precondition for referral to mediation, without examining whether the FIR actually disclosed a criminal offence.
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and strongly criticised the High Court's approach. It held that a mere failure to pay money owed under a civil/commercial arrangement does not by itself amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust, something more is needed to show dishonest intention from the very inception of the transaction, which was absent here. Relying on its own recent ruling in Delhi Race Club v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court held the High Court should simply have decided whether an offence was disclosed rather than pressuring the accused into a monetary settlement as a condition for considering quashing. The Court also invoked the classic guidelines in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal on when criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process, and clarified the complainant remains free to pursue civil remedies for recovery of the money.
A purely civil or commercial dispute over money owed cannot be converted into a criminal case for cheating just by filing an FIR: criminal courts and the police are not a shortcut for debt recovery, and High Courts should decide quashing petitions on their legal merits rather than using them to broker settlements.
