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 moreA bus operator (Respondent No. 3) applied to Madhya Pradesh's State Transport Authority to modify the time schedule of his vehicle on an existing route. The application was heard on 16.10.2014 by the Authority's full three-member bench (Chairperson plus two members) and allowed, but by the time the formal order was issued on 15.12.2014, one of the two members had been transferred and the order was signed only by the Chairperson and the remaining member. Two rival operators who had objected challenged the order in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, arguing it was invalid because not all three members who heard the matter had signed it, and both the Single Judge and the Division Bench agreed and quashed the order.
The Supreme Court examined the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Madhya Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994, and held that a multi-member statutory body's decisions are validly taken by majority of the members present at the hearing, absent any rule requiring unanimity or a special majority. Since the quorum of three was complete at the hearing and two of the three members (a clear majority) signed the final order, the order was valid even though the third member, who had since been transferred, never signed it; the Court also noted there was no pleading or evidence that the transferred member disagreed with the decision. Relying on precedents including the Privy Council's ruling in Gokal Chand v. Nand Ram Das and this Court's ruling in Ramaswamy Nadar v. State of Madras, the Court held the High Court's view that the order was invalid for want of all three signatures was legally incorrect, allowed the State's appeal, and set aside both the Single Judge's and Division Bench's judgments.
A decision of a multi-member statutory authority is not automatically invalid merely because one member who participated in the hearing is unavailable to sign the final order, so long as a majority of those who heard the matter sign it and nothing shows the absent member actually dissented, the decision stands.
