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 moreIn 2003, a railway passenger named Dasarath Yadav died after his head, which was protruding from a moving train's compartment door, collided with a post beside the track. The Railway Claims Tribunal held it was an "untoward incident" entitling his widow to compensation, but then denied payment on the view that the deceased was responsible for his own death. The Calcutta High Court reversed this, applying the principle of strict liability and awarding Rs. 8 lakh (the compensation figure after a 2003 revision) with 9% annual interest. The Union of India challenged only the award of interest on the revised, higher figure.
The Supreme Court applied its own earlier ruling in Union of India v. Rina Devi (2018), which holds that compensation must first be calculated using the amount prescribed as on the date of the accident, with reasonable interest running from that date; if this sum is less than the amount prescribed as on the date of the Tribunal's award, the claimant gets the higher of the two figures, but not both the revised figure and interest on it. Since the accident here occurred before the amount was revised from Rs. 4 lakh to Rs. 8 lakh, the High Court erred in awarding interest on the revised Rs. 8 lakh figure. The Court set aside the High Court's reasoning and allowed the appeal on this point of law, while expressly clarifying the widow would still keep the Rs. 8 lakh already awarded. Separately, on the amicus curiae's request, the Court adjourned for eight weeks a connected but distinct issue about railway safety reports: this did not affect the disposal of the parties' own compensation dispute, which was fully decided.
In railway (and similarly structured) accident compensation claims, the applicable payout is the amount fixed as on the date of the accident plus reasonable interest from then, compared against the amount fixed as on the date of the award, with the claimant getting whichever is higher, not an additional stacking of both the revised amount and interest.
