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 Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad, ordered the preventive detention of the respondent under a Maharashtra law targeting slumlords, bootleggers, and other "dangerous persons," after an Advisory Board found sufficient cause for detention and the State Government approved the order. The respondent challenged the detention before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), which quashed it both on the merits and on the separate ground that the detention order's mention of a 12-month detention period was, in the High Court's view, contrary to Section 3 of the Act. The detaining authority (the State) appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging only the second, legal-interpretation ground.
The Supreme Court left undisturbed the High Court's quashing of the detention order on its merits, but corrected the High Court's legal reasoning on the statutory point: it held that Section 3(2) of the Act deals only with how long the State's delegation of detention power to a local authority (like a Commissioner of Police) can last, not with how long an individual can actually be detained: that separate question is governed by Section 13, which fixes a 12-month maximum. Relying on its own earlier precedent (T. Devaki v. Government of Tamil Nadu), the Court held that mentioning a 12-month detention period in the order was not illegal, and the High Court had wrongly conflated the two different provisions. The Court also set aside certain general directions the High Court had issued about routinely notifying legal aid authorities in all future preventive detention cases, calling them unwarranted. The appeal was disposed of confirming the quashing of detention on merits, while correcting the flawed legal ground.
Even when a higher court ultimately agrees with the outcome of a lower court's decision, it may still step in to correct the legal reasoning behind it, getting the right result for the wrong reason can still create confusing or incorrect legal precedent for future cases.
