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 moreIn 2005-06, a discrepancy was noticed in the labelling of a pentavalent/tetravalent vaccine manufactured by Panacea Biotec Ltd. : the outer carton was labelled "Easy Five" (a five-in-one vaccine including Hepatitis-B protection) while the inner vial was labelled "Easy Four" (a four-in-one vaccine without the Hepatitis-B component), raising an allegation that the drug was misbranded and mislabelled contrary to the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules. The State's Drugs Inspector filed a complaint in 2009 against the company under the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons in 2012. Panacea Biotec approached the Kerala High Court to quash the proceedings, and the High Court did so, holding that the Magistrate had not conducted the mandatory inquiry required under Section 202 CrPC before issuing process to accused residing outside its jurisdiction. The State of Kerala appealed this quashing order to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court identified two questions: whether cognizance was barred by limitation under Sections 468/469/473 CrPC, and whether the mandatory Section 202 CrPC inquiry (required when an accused resides outside the court's jurisdiction) had to be conducted here. On limitation, the Court found the prosecution was validly within time. On the Section 202 point, relying on its earlier decision in Cheminova India Limited, the Court held that complaints filed by public servants in their official capacity, supported by admissible government analyst reports, stand on a different footing from private complaints, and no separate inquiry under Section 202 was mandatorily required in these circumstances; the accused seller was also, in any event, within the Magistrate's local jurisdiction. The Court therefore set aside the High Court's quashing order, restored the Magistrate's cognizance and summoning order as valid in law, and allowed the appeal, while directing that the deceased original accused be substituted with the persons currently responsible for running the respondent companies before fresh summons issue.
A criminal complaint filed by a public servant (like a Drugs Inspector) in the discharge of official duty, supported by an admissible government analyst report, is not automatically subject to the same mandatory pre-summoning inquiry under Section 202 CrPC that applies to private complaints: regulatory prosecutions by public officials get somewhat more procedural latitude at the cognizance stage.
