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 Union of India (Railways) raised demand notices against several transport companies, including Kamakhya Transport Pvt. Ltd., alleging that goods sent through the Railways had been mis-declared, and sought to recover additional charges after the goods had already been delivered. The respondents paid the demanded amounts but then filed claim petitions before the Railway Claims Tribunal seeking a refund, arguing the demands were illegal because they were raised only after delivery. The Tribunal ruled in favour of the respondents relying on a Gauhati High Court precedent holding that such demands must be raised before delivery, and the Gauhati High Court affirmed this on appeal, prompting the Railways to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the lower authorities had wrongly applied Sections 73/74 and 83 of the Railways Act (which govern charges relating to overloading and require pre-delivery demands) to a situation that actually fell under Section 66 of the Act, which deals with mis-declaration of the nature of goods and does not carry the same pre-delivery timing restriction. Examining the actual demand notices, the Court found they were clearly issued for mis-declaration, not overloading, and that there was no evidence the notices were not genuine. It also clarified that an earlier precedent (Jagjit Cotton Textile Mills), relied upon by the respondents and the High Court to hold that penal charges could only be levied before delivery, had been misread, since that observation was made in the context of a different provision (Section 54) and not Section 66. Accordingly, the High Court's judgment was set aside and the Railways' appeals were allowed.
When a statute contains multiple distinct provisions dealing with different kinds of violations (here, overloading versus mis-declaration of goods), the specific provision that actually matches the facts of the case governs: legal principles from a precedent decided under one provision cannot be mechanically transplanted onto disputes arising under a different provision.
