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 respondents had been discharged by a Special MCOCA Court in Delhi of organised-crime charges, and the Delhi High Court upheld that discharge. The State of NCT of Delhi appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the respondents' alleged crime syndicate activities, spanning multiple FIRs, including ones registered outside Delhi (in Uttar Pradesh), should still count toward the "continuing unlawful activity" threshold needed to invoke MCOCA in Delhi.
The Supreme Court held that charge-sheets filed in competent courts outside Delhi can indeed be counted toward establishing a "continuing unlawful activity" under MCOCA, rejecting the respondents' argument that only Delhi-based cases could count. However, the Court also held that an actual act of organised crime must still have been committed within Delhi for MCOCA to apply there at all, and after examining the record found no evidence that the respondents possessed property or committed any qualifying organised crime within Delhi: the complaint had effectively been engineered to be filed in Delhi only to invoke MCOCA's jurisdiction. The Court therefore upheld the discharge of the respondents, though for different legal reasons than the High Court had given.
Being named across multiple criminal cases in different states does not, by itself, let a state invoke a stringent special law like MCOCA: there must be concrete evidence that an organised crime was actually committed within that state's own territory, not just a paper trail designed to create jurisdiction.
