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 appellants' son, Shankareppa, died after being thrown from a negligently-driven jeep whose door suddenly opened. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,55,500 compensation and, because the driver lacked a valid licence (a breach of the insurance policy), ordered the insurer to pay the claimants first and recover the amount from the vehicle's owner (the "pay and recover" principle). The Karnataka High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 4,94,700 but reversed the "pay and recover" direction, holding that only the vehicle owner, not the insurer, was liable to pay, reasoning that the Supreme Court alone (under Article 142) could direct an insurer to pay and later recover.
The Supreme Court held that the "pay and recover" principle is not a special Article 142 power exclusive to itself, but flows from the ordinary statutory scheme for third-party risks established in National Insurance Co. v. Swaran Singh (2004) and reaffirmed in later rulings, where a licence/policy breach is proved, the insurer must first indemnify the third-party claimants and may then separately recover the amount from the insured owner, including by execution proceedings rather than a fresh suit. The Court found the High Court had wrongly relied on a doubt raised in National Insurance Co. v. Parvathneni, noting that the reference to a larger bench in that case had since been closed without disturbing the Swaran Singh line of authority. It therefore restored the Tribunal's "pay and recover" direction while affirming the High Court's enhanced compensation figure, partly allowing the appeal with no order as to costs.
When a vehicle's driver lacks a valid licence, the insurance company must still pay compensation to accident victims or their families up front, and can only recover that amount from the vehicle's owner afterward: victims are not left to chase the owner directly for their due compensation.
