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 moreTwo rival gangs operating in the industrial town of Khaparkheda near Nagpur had numerous criminal charge sheets filed against them over roughly a decade. The State invoked MCOCA against both gang leaders based substantially on this history of past charge sheets, following specific 2001 incidents of assault and arson between the rival groups. The Special Court under MCOCA convicted the accused, but the Bombay High Court set aside the convictions and acquitted them, holding that past charge sheets alone did not prove the separate requirement of "continuing unlawful activity" for pecuniary gain, and the State appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a conviction under Section 3 of MCOCA requires proof of two distinct elements, a pattern of past charge sheets/cognizance by courts, AND actual commission of an offence after MCOCA's enactment constituting "continuing unlawful activity" for pecuniary or other advantage, and that merely showing many past charge sheets does not satisfy the second element. Since the accused had already been acquitted of the specific post-MCOCA offences (the 2001 arson/assault incidents) under the IPC and Arms Act, and the State had not appealed those acquittals, the prosecution had failed to prove the organised-crime element required for MCOCA to apply. The Court agreed with the High Court's reasoning and dismissed the State's appeals, upholding the acquittals, while expressly leaving open certain legal questions (e.g., whether the "sanction" process was properly applied, and the precise interpretation of "any other advantage" in Section 2(e)) as unnecessary to decide given its primary finding.
A long history of criminal charge sheets against a person is not, by itself, enough to convict them of "organised crime" under special statutes like MCOCA: the prosecution must separately prove an actual unlawful act committed after the law's enactment, for pecuniary or similar gain, as part of a continuing pattern.
