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 respondents were accused in an NDPS case involving a commercial quantity of narcotics under Sections 22/23 of the NDPS Act. The Calcutta High Court had granted them bail after around 203 days in custody, noting the investigation was complete, the chargesheet had been filed, and the imported consignment in question had already been seized. The Union of India appealed, arguing the High Court had granted bail without considering the mandatory special conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act that apply to offences involving commercial quantities.
The Supreme Court agreed with the Union of India that Section 37 of the NDPS Act requires, before bail can be granted for offences involving a commercial quantity, that the court be affirmatively satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail, and found the High Court's order showed no such consideration. The Court set aside the High Court's bail order and remitted the matter back to the High Court to reconsider the bail application afresh in light of Section 37, directing it to decide within six months. In the interim, since charges had not even been framed, the Court itself ordered that Respondent No. 1 (Niyazuddin SK) be released on interim bail by the High Court until the matter was reconsidered.
For NDPS offences involving commercial quantities, a court cannot grant bail merely by weighing ordinary factors like time already spent in custody: it must expressly find that the accused is unlikely to be guilty and unlikely to reoffend, as Section 37 of the NDPS Act specially mandates.
