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 group of Rajasthan farmers bought groundnut seeds from the appellant seed dealers in June 2013, but the crop failed to yield properly, prompting them to file consumer complaints alleging substandard seeds. The District Consumer Forum ruled in the farmers' favour and awarded compensation; the State Commission reversed this in the dealers' favour; and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) then reinstated the District Forum's order against the dealers, prompting the seed sellers to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the original government inspection report from 2013, which found that only about 50% of the seed pods had fully developed while the rest were semi-developed, and also noted that excess rainfall that season had contributed to a natural shortfall in yield across similar crops in the region, indicating the crop failure was only partly attributable to seed quality and partly to weather (a force majeure-type factor). Because the evidence showed a mixed picture rather than complete deficiency of service by the seed sellers, the Court held that the lower fora had erred in fastening full liability and full compensation onto the appellants. It modified the orders to direct that only 50% of the compensation amount already deposited (with any accrued interest) be released to the farmers, with the remaining 50% refunded to the seed sellers.
In consumer disputes over agricultural inputs, compensation should be proportionate to the actual, evidence-based extent of the defect. Where an inspection report shows the shortfall was caused partly by natural factors like weather and only partly by a genuine product defect, courts will apportion liability rather than holding the seller fully responsible.
