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 moreFour Bihar country-liquor manufacturers had their licensed premises sealed or licences suspended by the State Excise Department at different times for alleged violations (short supply, excess alcohol strength, non-payment of dues), not long before the State imposed a total prohibition on country liquor in 2016. Each company sought a refund of licence fees and a related "differential amount" for the periods their units were shut, and the Patna High Court ruled in favour of all four, reasoning in part that earlier court rulings had found the sealing unlawful and that no hearing was given before suspension.
The Supreme Court examined all four connected appeals (Riga Sugar, Welcome Distilleries, Shipra Beverage, K.M. Sugar Mills) on their individual facts. For Riga Sugar it upheld the refund, since an earlier High Court ruling invalidating the sealing order had become final and no show-cause notice preceded the suspension. For Welcome Distilleries it reversed the High Court, finding the closures were justified by the company's own violations (non-payment, substandard liquor) after proper show-cause notices had been issued. For Shipra Beverage it upheld the refund since the suspension/cancellation had already been separately and finally quashed by the High Court. For K.M. Sugar Mills it allowed the refund, since there was no prior adjudication validating the penalty that led to the sealing.
A claim for refund or compensation against a government regulator's punitive action depends on whether due process (notice and a chance to be heard) was actually followed and whether a court had already and finally found the punishment unlawful, even when several similar cases are heard together, courts will decide each on its own specific facts.
