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 moreThis Miscellaneous Application arose out of the Supreme Court's earlier 19 April 2018 judgment dismissing petitions seeking an independent probe into the death of CBI Special Judge B.H. Loya. In that judgment, the Court had made strong observations about the conduct of the petitioners and intervenors, suggesting their proceedings lacked bona fides and amounted to a misuse of judicial process bordering on contempt. Senior advocate Indira Jaising, who had appeared for an intervenor in that case, filed this application asking the Court to expunge or clarify those remarks as they related to her personally, and to call for Bombay High Court records regarding the transfer of a judge connected to the case.
The Court examined the specific paragraphs of its earlier judgment and found that the observations about "conduct of the petitioners and intervenors" were directed at the parties, not personally at counsel, and that the submissions criticised (such as pressing for contempt notices against the High Court's administrative committee) had in fact been made and were not in dispute. It noted that the prayer seeking High Court records was conceded to have been given up during the hearing. Finding no basis to treat the observations as a personal finding against the applicant-counsel, the Court declined to expunge or alter its earlier findings and simply disposed of the application without granting the relief sought.
A court's critical observations about the conduct of parties in a case are not automatically treated as a personal finding against their counsel, and an application seeking to expunge such remarks will fail if the record shows the submissions in question were in fact made as described.
