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 had filed a criminal complaint alleging that twelve cheques worth six crore rupees, issued by a partnership firm and its partners (including the respondent) towards refund of a sale consideration, were dishonoured due to "stop payment" instructions. The respondent, one of the named partners, sought to quash the proceedings against him on the ground that he had already retired from the firm before the cheques were issued, relying on a retirement deed. The Karnataka High Court accepted this defence and quashed the case against him, prompting the complainant to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a partner cannot escape liability for dishonoured cheques merely by producing a private retirement deed: the Indian Partnership Act requires a retiring partner's exit to be formally notified to the Registrar of Firms and publicly notified (including in a vernacular newspaper) under Sections 32, 63 and 72 of the Act, none of which the respondent had done at the relevant time. The Court also noted the complaint had specifically alleged the respondent was involved in the firm's day-to-day affairs and was present when the cheques were signed, which was sufficient to satisfy Section 141 of the NI Act (liability of persons in charge of a company/firm's business) at this stage. Since these were disputed factual questions requiring evidence, they could not be resolved by simply quashing the case under Section 482 CrPC, so the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction.
Simply drafting or backdating a retirement deed does not legally remove someone as a partner of a firm. The law requires formal notice to the Registrar of Firms and public notification before a retiring partner is freed from liability for the firm's dealings, including dishonoured cheques.
