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 complaint under Section 498A IPC (cruelty to a married woman) and the Dowry Prohibition Act was filed against a husband and his family members, who all lived roughly 1750 km away in Pune while the case was pending in Patna. All accused except the husband got anticipatory bail, and the family members (not the husband) then asked the Magistrate to be exempted from personally appearing at every hearing, citing the long distance, an elderly retired-Army father, and others' jobs/studies in Pune. The Magistrate rejected this request, and the Patna High Court upheld that rejection, so the family members appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside both the High Court's and the Magistrate's orders, and granted the family members exemption from personal appearance. It held that the Magistrate had wrongly dismissed their application without properly weighing the genuine grounds raised, the 1750 km distance, the father's age and retired status, and the others' occupations in Pune, and that none of the reasons given for insisting on their presence (such as a hope of "conciliation" between the parties) actually held up, especially since the husband, whose presence might matter most, had not even sought this exemption. The Court clarified that a Magistrate still retains power under Section 205(2) Cr.P.C. to summon the accused in person later if genuinely necessary.
Being formally named as an accused does not mean a court can ignore real hardship (distance, age, work/study commitments) when deciding whether you must personally appear at every hearing: exemption under Section 205 Cr.P.C. should be granted when genuine grounds are shown, though the court can always call the accused back in person later if the case needs it.
