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 morePharmaceutical companies, including Cipla, challenged a series of Central Government notifications issued between 1999 and 2003 under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995, which fixed norms for conversion cost, packing charges, and process loss, and which were used to set retail and ceiling prices for bulk drugs and formulations. The companies argued the notifications were issued mechanically, without proper application of mind, and without the annual re-determination the Order required, and had filed writ petitions in multiple High Courts (including Allahabad, Bombay and Karnataka) challenging various notifications and demand notices. The Union of India appealed High Court rulings that had gone against it, while Dr. Reddy's Laboratories separately appealed a ruling that had gone against the company.
The Supreme Court answered each of the four legal questions framed in favour of the Government: it held the 1999 notification and its subsequent annual re-notifications were validly issued and not mechanical, that annual re-determination of norms was not legally required, that retail/ceiling price notifications were valid even without a separately determined packing-cost norm, and that fixing a formulation's retail price did not require first fixing the bulk drug's sale price. It also made two broader observations: criticising the Union of India for placing scanty material before the High Courts while dumping voluminous records only at the Supreme Court stage, and cautioning courts generally to be circumspect about granting interim relief that stays price-control notifications, since such orders can seriously harm public interest given the scale of the drug industry. On Cipla's alleged non-disclosure of a parallel Bombay High Court filing, the Court found no deliberate concealment and declined to non-suit Cipla on that ground alone. The appeals filed by the Union of India were allowed and the impugned judgments set aside; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories' appeals were dismissed, with no costs.
Government price-control notifications under statutory price-control orders carry a presumption of validity unless shown to be issued without application of mind, and courts should be cautious about staying such notifications through interim orders because of their wide public-interest impact on affordable medicine pricing for ordinary consumers.
