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 government employee (respondent) was accused of taking a bribe, and an FIR was registered against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act. After a sanction order permitting his prosecution was issued, he challenged it before the High Court, which quashed both the sanction and the resulting criminal proceedings, even though the trial had already begun and seven prosecution witnesses had already been examined. The State of Punjab appealed to the Supreme Court against that quashing order.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to quash the sanction order at such a late stage. Relying on its own precedent in State of Karnataka, Lokayukta Police v. S. Subbegowda, the Court explained that under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, once a trial has commenced, an appellate or revisional court cannot set aside proceedings merely because of an error or irregularity in the sanction, unless it specifically finds that a "failure of justice" actually resulted from that defect. The High Court's order contained no such finding. Since whether the sanction was validly granted is itself a question to be proved by evidence during trial, the Court restored the case to the trial court to continue from where it had stopped.
A technical defect in the paperwork authorizing a criminal case against a public official cannot be used to short-circuit a trial that is already underway. Courts must first find that real injustice occurred, not just point to an irregularity.
