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 moreA guest at a Delhi hotel was seriously injured after falling from the hotel's terrace, which was being used informally by guests for smoking at night, allegedly because it was dark and unsupervised. Police initially registered a case for attempted murder but, after investigation, instead charged hotel officials, including the appellant, a senior hotel executive, under IPC provisions for rash/negligent acts causing hurt and under the anti-tobacco law (COTPA) for allowing smoking in a non-designated area. The Delhi High Court declined to quash the chargesheet against the appellant, who then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that merely holding a senior position in the hotel's management was not enough to attach criminal liability: there had to be specific allegations showing direct involvement or negligence by that individual, which were lacking here. On the COTPA charge, the Court found the law only requires a hotel to provide some designated smoking area, and since the hotel admittedly had one (at the lobby level), the mere fact that guests smoked elsewhere on an unauthorized terrace did not make out an offence against the appellant. Distinguishing the High Court's reliance on the Uphaar Cinema fire case (where there were specific, provable statutory violations directly causing deaths), the Court held this was a fit case to quash the proceedings against the appellant under its inherent powers. It accordingly allowed the appellant's appeal and quashed the chargesheet and all proceedings against him, while only partly allowing a co-accused's appeal and dismissing the victim's sister's separate appeal against procedural directions.
Holding a senior or managerial position in an organisation does not by itself make a person criminally liable for incidents on the premises: criminal prosecution requires specific factual allegations connecting that individual personally to the wrongdoing, not liability by association with their job title.
