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 moreHaldia Steels Limited entered into an MOU with Suresh Kumar Agrawal for transfer of a manganese mining lease and conversion of his proprietary business into a private company whose shares would go to the company. After paying an advance of Rs. 50 lakhs (against a total of Rs. 3.2 crore due), the company alleged Agrawal never supplied manganese ore and filed a criminal complaint in 2014, six years after the alleged events of 2007-08, accusing him of cheating and criminal breach of trust. Police investigation led to a closure report finding the dispute purely civil, which the trial court accepted, but the Calcutta High Court later directed further investigation.
The Supreme Court held that the complaint was grossly delayed by six years with no explanation, and that the company itself had failed to pay the outstanding Rs. 2.7 crore under the MOU, while Agrawal had already transferred 28% of the incorporated company's shares as promised. The Court found the company had twisted facts, falsely claiming the advance was for manganese-ore supply when the written MOU showed otherwise, and that no evidence supported new allegations of forgery raised only after the closure report. The High Court's order directing further investigation was quashed and set aside as an unjustified exercise of revisional jurisdiction, and the magistrate's order accepting the closure report was restored.
A business dispute arising from breach of a contract or MOU cannot be dressed up as a criminal complaint, especially when filed after years of unexplained delay. Courts will quash such proceedings as an abuse of the legal process.
