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 Directorate of Revenue Intelligence intercepted a courier carrying about 8 kg of smuggled gold worth roughly Rs. 2.71 crore near Kolkata, who stated he had been engaged by two brothers (Ashok Kumar Jalan and Amit Jalan, the "detenus") to receive and deliver smuggled gold. After the detenus were arrested, confessed under the Customs Act, and remanded to judicial custody, the Detaining Authority separately passed preventive detention orders against them under the COFEPOSA Act. Ankit Ashok Jalan (son/brother of the detenus) challenged these detention orders before the Delhi High Court, which quashed them on the ground that the Detaining Authority had not properly considered a co-accused's "retraction petition" and that detention was unwarranted since the detenus were already in custody with no imminent prospect of bail. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court against this quashing.
The Supreme Court allowed the Union of India's appeal, holding that the High Court had committed a grave error in interfering with the Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction. On examining the record, the Court found that the so-called "retraction petition" relied upon by the High Court was in fact an unsigned, unstamped handwritten order that did not inspire confidence, and that the Detaining Authority genuinely had no knowledge of any retraction at the time the detention orders were passed, so there was no suppression or non-consideration of a vital document. The Court therefore set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the detention orders, and directed that the detenus be taken back into custody immediately; it also dismissed the detenus' own special leave petition and three related writ petitions (which had separately asked the Court to reinterpret a provision of the COFEPOSA Act) since those issues were not substantively argued and fell away in light of the main decision.
Courts reviewing a preventive detention order will scrutinise the authenticity and reliability of the documents said to undermine it before quashing the order: an unsigned, unauthenticated document on the case file is not sufficient to show that a detaining authority ignored material evidence or acted without proper satisfaction.
