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 university's medical college had an earlier MCI inspection (November 2016) that found only minor, permissible deficiencies, and a Letter of Permission for 2016-17 was granted after conditions were imposed by the Court-appointed Oversight Committee. When a second MCI inspection team arrived on 9 December 2016, the Dean refused to let them inspect, citing a self-declared university holiday for Eid that did not match any officially notified holiday: the assessors found the campus eerily empty of patients, doctors, and functioning wards, suggesting the "holiday" was staged to dodge the inspection. Based on this refusal, the Central Government debarred the college from admitting students for 2017-18 and 2018-19 and ordered encashment of its bank guarantee, which the university challenged by writ petition.
The Supreme Court examined the specific contractual clause barring MCI inspections within two days before or after an "important religious and festival holiday," and held on the facts that 9 December (a Friday) did not fall within that protected window relative to the Eid holiday on 12 December, so the refusal to allow inspection was unjustified obstruction, not a legitimate exercise of the holiday-moratorium clause. The Court held that permitting an institution to block a scheduled inspection with pretextual excuses would reward deviance, so it refused to direct renewal of the Letter of Permission for the 2017-18 academic session. However, it allowed students already admitted in 2016-17 to continue their studies, directed the MCI to conduct a fresh inspection within two months (treating the renewal application as one for 2018-19 instead), and ordered that the bank guarantee be kept alive rather than encashed, with the matter listed for further monitoring of the fresh inspection process.
An institution cannot use a contractual or regulatory protection (like a holiday moratorium on inspections) as a pretext to actually obstruct a lawful regulatory inspection, doing so can cost it the specific academic year's permission, even though courts may still allow a fresh chance in a later cycle and protect students already enrolled.
