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 tractor and trolley belonging to the respondent was seized by Forest Department officers for allegedly carrying sand illegally excavated from a restricted area of the Chambal National Sanctuary. When the Judicial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge refused to order interim release of the vehicle under Section 451 of the CrPC, the respondent approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 482 CrPC, which directed the Magistrate to release the vehicle. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that once confiscation proceedings had been initiated by the Forest Department under the state-amended Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, the ordinary criminal courts' jurisdiction to release seized property was excluded.
The Supreme Court held that the Madhya Pradesh amendments to the Indian Forest Act (Sections 52, 52-A to 52-C) create a special, self-contained scheme for confiscation of forest produce and the vehicles/tools used in forest offences, which is distinct and parallel to criminal prosecution. Once the Forest Department's Authorised Officer sends intimation to the Magistrate about initiation of confiscation proceedings, Section 52-C's non-obstante bar excludes the jurisdiction of ordinary courts (including the Magistrate under Section 451 CrPC and the High Court under Section 482 CrPC) to order release of the seized property: that power lies only with the Authorised Officer, Appellate Authority, or Sessions Court in revision. The Court distinguished its earlier ruling in State of MP v Madhukar Rao (which concerned the Wildlife Protection Act, a differently worded statute without an equivalent bar), and emphasized that confiscation serves environmental protection goals under Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution. It therefore allowed the State's appeal and set aside the High Court's order directing release of the vehicle, along with the three other tagged appeals raising the identical point.
Once a forest or wildlife department has formally initiated statutory confiscation proceedings over a seized vehicle, an accused person generally cannot bypass that specialised process by seeking interim release through the ordinary criminal courts: the right forum is the confiscation Appellate Authority or the Sessions Court in revision.
