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 moreCommander Ravindra V. Desai, a naval officer, was found guilty by a Court Martial on ten charges and dismissed from service with forfeiture of 24 months' seniority. The Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) later set aside the findings on three of the ten charges for misjoinder, upheld the findings on the remaining seven, and substituted the dismissal with a lesser punishment of forfeiture of seniority for 24 months, also ordering reinstatement without back pay for the period of dismissal. Both the Union of India and the officer filed cross-appeals before the Supreme Court: the officer challenging the conviction itself, and the Union challenging the leniency of the AFT's revised sentence.
The Supreme Court held that it would not interfere with the AFT's factual findings unless they were "utterly perverse," and found no such infirmity, so the officer's appeal challenging his conviction failed. On the Union's appeal regarding sentence, the Court noted the officer had already lost his salary for over five years due to the pendency of litigation (the dismissal order had been stayed since 2015) and his seniority had been forfeited by 24 months: this combined effect was held sufficient to meet the ends of justice, so the Court declined to enhance the punishment further. Both cross-appeals were dismissed, and the officer was directed to be reinstated within two weeks without back pay for the intervening period.
Appellate courts reviewing tribunal findings of fact apply a narrow "perversity" standard rather than re-weighing evidence afresh, and when assessing whether a sentence is adequate, courts look at its real-world cumulative effect (e.g., years of lost salary) rather than only its formal label.
