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 moreThis is a miscellaneous application filed by the respondent (an accused in an earlier bribery prosecution) to correct the Supreme Court's own judgment dated 17.7.2018 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 895-896/2018. The respondent pointed out that the earlier judgment had mistakenly described him as a "Government servant," which was factually incorrect, and asked the Court to revisit his conviction in light of that error.
The Court accepted that the respondent was not a government servant but noted that bribe money (in Rs. 500 notes) was recovered from him, along with anthracene powder traces on his shirt pocket, which it found sufficient to establish the ingredients of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (which deals with a non-public-servant who accepts or obtains a bribe, as opposed to Sections 7/13 which apply to public servants). The Court accordingly modified the respondent's conviction from Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) (offences specific to public servants) to Section 8 of the Act, and correspondingly reduced his sentence from one year to six months. The application was disposed of on these modified terms.
Even a final Supreme Court judgment can later be corrected through a proper application if it contains a factual error (such as misdescribing a person's status), and such a correction can directly change which specific criminal provision and sentence actually applies.
