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 moreFIRs were registered against several respondents for transporting and selling gutka/pan masala, charging them both under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and under provisions of the Indian Penal Code (Sections 188, 272, 273, and 328). The Bombay High Court quashed the IPC proceedings, holding that the respondents could only be proceeded against under the special provisions of the Food Safety Act and not separately under the IPC. The State of Maharashtra appealed to the Supreme Court against this quashing, which was common to a batch of twelve connected appeals.
The Supreme Court decisively rejected the High Court's first conclusion, holding that there is no general bar to prosecuting a person under both a special statute (like the Food Safety Act) and the general Penal Code for the same conduct, provided the ingredients of the offences under each law are independently satisfied, relying on established double-jeopardy jurisprudence, including the principle that a person is only barred from being punished twice for the same offence, not from being validly prosecuted under two different enactments. On the separate factual question of whether the specific IPC offences (Sections 188, 272, 273, 328) were actually made out on the facts of each FIR, the Court found that new arguments had been raised before it that were not canvassed before the High Court, and with the consent of both sides, remanded that narrower factual question back to the High Court for fresh consideration, directing that no coercive action be taken against the respondents in the meantime.
Being prosecuted under a special regulatory law (such as the Food Safety Act) does not by itself immunise a person from separate criminal liability under the general Penal Code for the same underlying conduct, so long as the distinct ingredients of each offence are independently met.
