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 moreSurya and Mayura Vadanan, both British citizens of Indian origin settled in the U.K., had two daughters who were also British by birth; their marriage broke down and Mayura brought the children to India. The U.K. court (High Court of Justice) had made the children wards of court and passed custody-related orders, but the Madras High Court refused to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the children's production so they could be taken back to the U.K., reasoning that the children's welfare and settled life in India outweighed deference to the foreign court's orders.
The Supreme Court held that the Madras High Court erred in declining the writ of habeas corpus, reaffirming the "comity of courts" principle: where a foreign court (here, the U.K. court, which had the closest and most intimate connection with the children) has already passed custody-related orders and is seized of the matter, Indian courts should ordinarily respect and give effect to such orders rather than conduct a fresh, full inquiry into the children's best interests, except in special, compelling circumstances. The Court found no such special circumstances here and noted that mediation efforts to settle the dispute amicably had failed. It set aside the High Court's refusal and directed, through detailed terms, that the children be taken to the U.K. so the custody dispute could be decided by the U.K. court, with Surya bearing travel and litigation costs and making maintenance arrangements for Mayura and the children in the interim.
When children are habitually resident abroad and a foreign court is already handling their custody, Indian courts generally defer to that foreign court under the "comity of courts" principle rather than re-deciding custody themselves: a parent cannot defeat a foreign court's jurisdiction simply by relocating the children to India and relying on local courts to start the welfare inquiry afresh.
