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, who was the Block Pramukh of a Kshettra Panchayat in Uttar Pradesh, faced a no-confidence motion after 32 of 59 members signed a requisition against her. She challenged the Collector's notice convening the no-confidence vote, arguing that the Collector should have investigated claims by 10 members that their signatures were obtained by fraud, and that she was not given the mandatory 15 days' notice. The Allahabad High Court rejected both arguments and dismissed her writ petition, after which the no-confidence motion was passed by a majority against her.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 15 of the Act, a Collector's role in scrutinizing a no-confidence notice is only to check its formal validity, not to conduct a detailed evidentiary inquiry into disputed questions like fraud or forged signatures: such disputes are enquiries for a fuller proceeding, not for the Collector at the notice stage. The Court also found the appellant had failed to show the notice was defective on the 15-day timeline, noting she herself had raised an objection on the 16th day, undermining her own claim. Relying on its own recent precedent interpreting the same provision and a Full Bench ruling of the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court held both grounds without merit and dismissed the appeal, confirming that the no-confidence motion validly took effect.
Local government officials issuing procedural notices (like convening a no-confidence vote) are not required to resolve factual disputes such as allegations of forged signatures before acting: such disputes must be raised and proven through a separate, fuller process, and cannot be used to block statutory timelines.
