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, a judicial officer presiding over a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, had ruled that a settlement petition in a case before him could only be filed by one of two advocates on record (because of a fee dispute between the two lawyers), effectively refusing to record a compromise filed by the other advocate. The Allahabad High Court rightly set aside this order on the merits, but went further and made harsh remarks questioning the judicial officer's integrity and bona fides, imposed costs of Rs. 10,000 on him personally, and directed administrative action against him. He appealed to the Supreme Court solely against these personal remarks, costs, and administrative-action direction, not against the setting aside of his original order.
The Supreme Court agreed the original order was legally wrong, but held that a High Court exceeding its role by publicly branding a subordinate judicial officer as dishonest or acting in bad faith, rather than simply correcting the legal error, oversteps its bounds, citing a long line of precedent cautioning higher courts against intemperate personal criticism of lower-court judges who have no forum to defend themselves. It expunged the adverse remarks, directed deletion of the offending paragraph from the High Court's judgment, and set aside the Rs. 10,000 costs imposed on the officer personally, noting the administrative action had in any case already been dropped.
Appellate courts correcting a lower court's legal error should confine themselves to the law, not personally impugn the judge's integrity or character: judicial officers have a right to have unwarranted, career-damaging personal remarks removed from the record even while their underlying legal decision stands overturned.
