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 moreRespondent no.1 wanted to contest an election to the Dental Council of India under the Dentists Act, 1948, but his nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer because his name was not entered in Part A of the State register of dentists. He challenged the rejection before the Kerala High Court, whose Single Judge set aside the rejection and ordered the election to be conducted afresh including his name; a Division Bench upheld that order on appeal. The appellant (a candidate in the election) then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that once the election process had begun, the High Court should not have entertained the dispute at all, since the Dentists Act and its Election Regulations provide that election disputes must be referred to the Central Government, whose decision is final.
The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant, relying on settled precedent (including N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal) that once an election process has commenced, courts should generally not interfere with it: an aggrieved candidate's remedy lies in the statutory post-election dispute mechanism, here Section 5 of the Dentists Act read with Regulation 20, under which the Central Government decides election disputes. The Court held the High Court erred in intervening mid-process, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed that the election result be published. It kept open Respondent no.1's right to approach the Central Government under Section 5 within four weeks, with no limitation objection to be raised against him for that delay, and allowed the appeal with no order as to costs.
Where a statute provides a specific post-election forum (here, a reference to the Central Government) to resolve election disputes, courts will generally decline to interfere with an election already in progress: a candidate's grievance about eligibility or nomination is ordinarily to be pursued through that statutory mechanism after the election, not by halting the process through a writ petition.
