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 moreRespondent no. 1, an Executive Engineer in a Karnataka state power company, was accused of amassing assets worth about Rs. 6.64 crore disproportionate to his known income. Based on a detailed source report prepared by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Superintendent of Police ordered registration of an FIR against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR, holding that the Superintendent had not conducted a proper preliminary inquiry before ordering registration, and that this lack of application of mind vitiated the whole case. The State of Karnataka appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that neither Section 13 nor Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires a formal "preliminary enquiry" before registering an FIR in corruption cases: earlier rulings (including the Constitution Bench decision in Lalita Kumari) only say such an inquiry is desirable, not mandatory, and that requirement can be relaxed where a superior officer already has a detailed, well-reasoned source report clearly disclosing a cognizable offence. Here, the source report itself effectively served that screening function, and the SP had passed his order based on it. The Court also rejected the argument that the accused officer should have been given a chance to explain himself before the FIR was filed, noting settled law that no such right exists at that stage. It therefore set aside the High Court's quashing order and revived the FIR.
A public servant accused of corruption cannot get an FIR thrown out merely because there was no separate formal preliminary inquiry. If the police already had a sufficiently detailed report showing a prima facie offence, registering the FIR directly is lawful, and the accused has no right to be heard before that happens.
