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 CBI alleged a large conspiracy in which a Cotton Corporation of India (CCI) purchase officer and his son bought cotton cheaply from real farmers before the government's Minimum Support Price (MSP) was announced, hoarded it, and then resold it to CCI at the higher MSP through dozens of "benami" (front) farmers with forged signatures on weighment slips, causing an alleged loss of over Rs. 21 crore to CCI/the government. Before charges were even framed, the accused got the special court to summon a letter from CCI stating no loss had occurred, and on that basis both the special court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court discharged the accused. The CBI, as appellant, challenged these discharge orders before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the special court and High Court committed a fundamental legal error by relying on documents summoned at the accused's instance to justify discharge: settled law (from State of Orissa v. Debendranath Padhi and later cases) holds that at the charge-framing/discharge stage under Section 239 CrPC, only the chargesheet and the documents filed with it by the prosecution can be considered, not material introduced by the defence. The Court found the discharge orders effectively conducted a "mini-trial" and read like an acquittal on merits rather than a proper assessment of whether the chargesheet disclosed a triable case. It set aside the discharge orders and directed the special court to decide afresh, based only on the prosecution's chargesheet and documents, whether the accused should be discharged or charged for trial.
At the stage of framing criminal charges, courts must confine themselves to the prosecution's chargesheet and its accompanying documents: an accused cannot get discharged by introducing their own defence material before trial even begins.
