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 moreA hotel guest handed his car and keys to the Taj Mahal Hotel's valet for parking, receiving a parking tag stating the vehicle was parked at the guest's own risk and that the hotel would not be liable for loss or damage. The car was later stolen from the hotel's parking area by trespassers who exploited a lapse by hotel security. The car's insurer, after settling the owner's claim, together with the owner, filed a consumer complaint against the hotel, which succeeded before the State and National Consumer Commissions, prompting the hotel's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a complaint filed by an insurer as subrogee along with the original owner as co-complainant is maintainable before consumer fora. On the core question, the Court held that a hotel cannot contractually exclude its liability for negligence of its staff once a guest's vehicle is handed over to hotel valets: an implied obligation arises to return it safely. It further held that strict liability does not apply to hotels for guests' vehicles; instead, a rule of prima facie negligence applies, placing the burden on the hotel to prove the loss was not due to its want of care (under Sections 151 and 152 of the Contract Act) before any exemption clause can protect it. Since the hotel failed to explain how the theft occurred despite this burden, the Court held it liable and dismissed the hotel's appeal.
A business (like a hotel) cannot escape liability for negligence of its own staff merely by printing a disclaimer on a token or receipt, once it takes custody of a customer's property, it bears the burden of proving it took reasonable care, and only then can an exemption clause help it.
