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 Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974 allowed the State to take over cashew factories under specified circumstances (e.g., large-scale unemployment at the factory) and was placed in the Constitution's Ninth Schedule, which normally shields a law from being struck down for violating fundamental rights. Between 1984-1988, the State issued near-identical notices and acquired 10 factories and then 36 more factories on the stated ground that they were closed and would otherwise cause large-scale unemployment. The owners of the 10 factories lost before the High Court, while the 36 factories' owners had earlier succeeded directly before the Supreme Court (Indian Nut Products case) and got their factories back; the 10-factory owners (including the appellant) then pursued these further appeals.
The Court held that although the parent Act enjoyed Ninth Schedule protection, a later Amendment Act (Section 6) that singled out only the 10 factories for continued acquisition, while the 36 similarly-placed factories under the earlier Supreme Court ruling had already been returned to their owners, created an irrational and discriminatory classification with no rational connection to the law's stated purpose of preventing unemployment. Since all 46 factories were similarly situated and treated identically by the original notices, there was no intelligible differentia justifying different treatment, so the differentiation violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and ordered the State to hand back the cashew factories and appurtenant land within eight weeks.
Even a law or amendment that enjoys special constitutional protection (Ninth Schedule) can still be struck down if it arbitrarily treats similarly situated people differently without a rational basis: equal treatment under Article 14 remains a powerful check even against specially shielded legislation.
