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 appellants, an elderly couple, are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of a woman who had married their son in July 2019. After the husband filed for divorce in March 2021, the wife lodged an FIR nearly a year later in March 2022 alleging cruelty, assault, dowry demands (for a BMW car) and an attempt to strangle her, naming her husband, the appellants, and her sister-in-law. The Patna High Court quashed the proceedings against the sister-in-law, finding the allegations against her general and omnibus, but refused the same relief to the appellants (the in-laws), holding a prima facie case existed against them, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred by applying different standards to persons in an identical situation: a comparison of the FIR showed the allegations against the appellants and against the sister-in-law were, in substance, the same, with no specific dates, places, or acts attributed to either, the only distinct allegation against the appellants being that they would "quarrel," which is not a criminal offence. The Court also noted that the criminal complaint was filed nearly a year after the husband's divorce petition, and, taken together with the vague and general nature of the allegations, this lent credence to the argument that the complaint against the in-laws may have been a counter-blast to the divorce proceedings. The Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants, while expressly clarifying that this had no bearing on the merits of the case against the husband, whose proceedings would continue since he had not sought quashing.
Courts will not allow prosecution of family members based solely on vague, general, or "omnibus" allegations with no specific acts attributed to them, especially where the timing of a criminal complaint suggests it may be a retaliatory counter-blast to a pending matrimonial dispute like a divorce petition; the same legal standard must be applied consistently to all co-accused facing similarly vague allegations.
