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 respondent, a 22-year-old cleaner, suffered a severe accident in 2008 when the tempo he was travelling in as an employee was driven rashly and hit a stationary tanker, leaving both his lower limbs 90% impaired (one leg amputated) and his functional disability assessed at 100%. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded him about Rs. 16,34,400 with 9% interest, which the insurance company did not appeal, but the claimant appealed to the High Court seeking more, and the High Court instead ordered the insurance company to directly provide and maintain prosthetic limbs, a motorized wheelchair, and travel costs for fittings, twice a year, indefinitely. The insurance company appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing an insurer's role is only to pay monetary compensation, not to personally manage a victim's ongoing physical care.
The Supreme Court agreed with the insurance company that an insurer's obligation is to indemnify losses through monetary compensation, not to take on an open-ended duty of monitoring and servicing a victim's medical equipment. However, recognizing that the victim's genuine need for mobility aids and future medical care was a legitimate concern the High Court had rightly tried to address, the Court converted that concern into a fixed monetary sum instead, estimating the cost and five-year replacement cycle of prosthetic limbs (about Rs. 10 lakh total over his lifetime) and a wheelchair (about Rs. 2 lakh), for a total additional award of Rs. 12 lakh with 6% interest, payable within two months.
Insurance companies in motor accident cases can only be made to pay monetary compensation, not be turned into ongoing caregivers responsible for physically maintaining a victim's medical equipment, but courts can and should convert the real cost of a victim's future medical and mobility needs into a fair, calculated lump-sum monetary award instead.
