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 moreCousins Kallappa Kadolkar and Vijay Kadolkar, both 33-year-old carpenters, died when their motorcycle was hit head-on by an MSRTC bus in March 2011. Their families claimed compensation of Rs.15,000 per month income each; the Tribunal assessed monthly income at only Rs.4,500, and the Karnataka High Court partly enhanced this to Rs.6,000 per month with a multiplier of 16, awarding about Rs.9,09,000 to each family. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the families appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that both the Tribunal and the High Court had underestimated the deceased's monthly income, given that they were skilled carpenters (one of them employing three workers) with additional agricultural income, and fixed the monthly income higher before deducting 1/4th for personal expenses as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation. Applying the multiplier of 16 appropriate to their age, it recalculated loss of dependency at Rs.17,28,000 for each family, and separately awarded sums for loss of love and affection to children and parents, funeral expenses, loss of estate, and loss of consortium, bringing the totals to Rs.21,53,000 and Rs.23,03,000 respectively. It also corrected the interest rate from 8% to the standard 9% per annum from the date of filing until payment, following Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association. The appeals were allowed in these terms with no order as to costs.
Courts assessing motor-accident compensation for self-employed or skilled workers (like carpenters) must look beyond a bare minimum wage figure to the claimant's actual earning capacity, including employment of others and secondary income sources, and must apply the standardized conventional heads and the Supreme Court-mandated 9% interest rate rather than a lower rate set by lower courts.
