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 respondent, a senior Central Excise Commissioner in Delhi, was accused by the CBI of conspiring with a middleman and a subordinate officer to conduct a sham "raid" on a business premises so as to extract a Rs. 60 lakh bribe in exchange for not taking departmental action. A trial court framed criminal charges against him based mainly on two intercepted phone calls using coded language like "mission successful" and "six zero." The Delhi High Court later quashed these charges, and the CBI appealed that quashing to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court closely examined the actual transcripts of the two key intercepted calls and found that the respondent was not even party to the first call (which was between two other co-accused), and that the second call, the only one he was personally on, used vague, ambiguous code words that did not, on their own, prove he had demanded or agreed to accept a bribe. The Court reiterated settled law that proof of an actual demand for illegal gratification is an indispensable requirement for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that charges should only be quashed in rare, clear cases. Finding no material directly implicating the respondent, the Court upheld the High Court's quashing order and dismissed the CBI's appeal, while clarifying that the trial against the other co-accused could continue on its own merits.
Merely being linked by name or vague coded language in intercepted conversations is not enough to sustain a corruption charge: prosecutors must show a clear, direct demand for a bribe by the specific accused, not just suspicious-sounding chatter involving other people.
