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, a Colonel in the Indian Army posted as Commandant of a Vehicle Depot in Udhampur, was accused of demanding a bribe of Rs. 100 per motorcycle from a contractor for passing vehicles in an inspection test. The contractor reported this, and a trap was arranged: marked currency was handed over, and a subsequent search recovered cash and, separately, ammunition from the appellant's possession. He was tried and originally faced dismissal from service, but the Armed Forces Tribunal, exercising its discretion under Section 15(6) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, modified the punishment for the ammunition-related charge from dismissal to compulsory retirement with pensionary benefits, and separately dismissed his petition for review.
The Supreme Court examined whether the Armed Forces Tribunal had correctly exercised its statutory discretion in reducing the punishment. It found that the recovery of ammunition from the appellant's possession was an established fact, and that the Tribunal's decision to take a lenient view, converting dismissal to compulsory retirement with retiral benefits, was a just and proportionate exercise of discretion under Section 15(6), balancing military discipline against fairness to the individual. The Court held the Tribunal had acted strictly within its statutory framework and found no error in its rejection of the review petition. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Specialised tribunals like the Armed Forces Tribunal are given discretion to calibrate punishment (for example, converting dismissal into compulsory retirement) based on the facts of a case, and constitutional courts will not interfere with that discretion when it has been exercised reasonably and within the bounds of the law.
