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 moreThe first respondent, along with her husband, had availed multiple bank loans (from HDFC Bank, Bank of India, Vijaya Bank and Syndicate Bank) by submitting documents that the banks later found to be forged, acting as co-applicant in some loans and as guarantor/surety in others. After the banks complained to the police, FIRs were registered and chargesheets followed, but the accused eventually settled with the banks and paid the amounts, after which the High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against her, reasoning that continuing the prosecution after settlement would serve no purpose. The State appealed to the Supreme Court against the quashing.
The Supreme Court held that serious economic offences such as forgery and cheating involving financial institutions are different in kind from private disputes: they affect the economic fabric of society and public trust in financial institutions, so a post-FIR settlement between the accused and the complainant bank does not, by itself, justify quashing the criminal proceedings. The Court rejected the argument that the accused's gender, or her claimed lack of awareness as merely a guarantor/co-applicant, could excuse her from prosecution, holding that criminal liability does not depend on gender and cannot be avoided on vague pleas of ignorance in financial offences. It also held that concern about the burden on the criminal justice system is not a valid ground to quash a grave economic offence merely because the parties have settled. The appeals were allowed, the High Court's quashing order was set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the case according to law.
Settling the money dispute with a bank or lender does not automatically wipe out criminal liability for forgery or cheating involved in obtaining a loan: courts treat such economic offences as matters of public interest that generally must still go to trial, settlement notwithstanding.
