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 respondent's husband died after falling from a train, allegedly due to a rush of passengers; a witness who saw him buy a ticket and board the train filed an unchallenged affidavit, though the ticket itself was never recovered from the body. The Railway Claims Tribunal dismissed her compensation claim, holding it was a case of being "run over" rather than an "untoward incident" of a bona fide passenger, but the High Court reversed this and awarded Rs. 4 lakhs compensation, relying on the unchallenged affidavit. The Union of India appealed, but informed the Court it was interested mainly in having the law clarified rather than disturbing the High Court's result, prompting the Court to appoint an amicus and also address several recurring legal questions referred by the Railway Claims Tribunal (burden of proof, applicable compensation rate, and rate of interest).
The Supreme Court held it would not disturb the High Court's judgment awarding compensation to the respondent. On the broader legal questions, it held that mere presence of a body on railway premises is not by itself conclusive proof of being a bona fide passenger, but mere absence of a ticket does not defeat a claim either: the initial burden lies on the claimant, which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of relevant facts, after which the burden shifts to the Railways, to be assessed case-by-case. It also clarified that the applicable compensation amount is to be determined as per the rules in force on the date of the accident/incident (not the date of the claim or the award), and that interest should run from the date of the accident until payment at a reasonable rate, resolving the conflicting precedents the Tribunal had flagged. The appeal was disposed of in these terms.
In railway accident compensation claims, a claimant does not need to produce the actual ticket to prove they were a genuine passenger: credible supporting facts (such as an eyewitness affidavit) can discharge that initial burden, after which it falls on the Railways to rebut it.
