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 moreMambally's Bakery sued for a permanent injunction to stop a rival shop from using its trade mark "Mambally's Bakery." After the trial court granted an interim injunction, a court-appointed Commissioner inspected the appellant's shop twice, once before the injunction was actually served on him, and again afterward. Based on these inspections, the trial court found the appellant guilty of willfully disobeying the injunction and sentenced him to a week's civil imprisonment, a decision the Kerala High Court upheld.
The Supreme Court found that the first inspection, which showed the trade mark being used, occurred before the injunction order was actually served on the appellant, so it could not count as disobedience at all. On the second inspection (after service), the goods were being sold without the offending wrappers/labels: the only lingering issue was an un-removed hoarding 13 feet up, which the appellant (said to be 40% disabled) explained he could not immediately take down. The Court held that contempt for "willful disobedience" carries a quasi-criminal character and must be proved to a high standard, and the explanation offered here was acceptable, so no genuine willful disobedience was made out. It set aside the imprisonment order and allowed the appeal, while directing the trial court to proceed and decide the underlying suit on its merits, expressing no opinion on the merits itself.
A contempt/imprisonment order for disobeying a court injunction requires proof of deliberate, willful non-compliance, not just any gap between what was ordered and what happened on the ground, and courts will scrutinize the timeline and the reasonableness of any explanation before upholding such a serious penalty.
