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 appellant and the complainant, colleagues at a Municipal Corporation in Madhya Pradesh, developed a friendship that turned physically intimate; the complainant was already married with a son. She alleged the appellant promised to marry her, then forced himself on her and later refused to follow through on the promise, so she filed an FIR alleging rape on a false promise of marriage. However, before that FIR was lodged, the appellant had already filed complaints against the complainant alleging she was harassing him and threatening self-harm, which led his employer to issue her a show-cause notice threatening termination. The Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to quash the FIR and chargesheet, holding it was a matter for trial.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the FIR and chargesheet. It found the timeline telling: the FIR was lodged four months after the alleged incident, and only after the appellant's complaints had triggered a show-cause notice threatening the complainant's job, suggesting the complaint was possibly a retaliatory afterthought rather than a genuine, contemporaneous grievance. Applying the guidelines from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal on when criminal proceedings may be quashed (including where they are actuated by malice or ulterior motive), the Court held that on these facts the proceedings should not be allowed to continue, since courts must scrutinize FIRs carefully when there is a real possibility they were filed for vengeance rather than justice.
Courts will look beyond the bare text of an FIR to the surrounding timeline and context: a criminal complaint filed only after the accused's own grievances trigger adverse consequences for the complainant can be quashed if it appears to be a vindictive afterthought rather than a genuine complaint.
