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 moreFour public-sector general insurance companies (United India, National, Oriental, and New India Assurance) were sued in a Public Interest Litigation before the Punjab & Haryana High Court after a judge noticed, while hearing a motor-accident appeal, that the companies' empanelled lawyers were not appearing and were allegedly being underpaid. The High Court registered the matter as a suo motu PIL and later directed the insurers to strictly follow fee schedules fixed by GIPSA (an informal, non-statutory association of these insurers), including an older 2005 schedule setting a higher fee than what the companies had actually paid. The insurers appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that advocate-fee disputes are a private contractual matter that should never have been turned into a PIL.
The Supreme Court held that it would not revisit whether the High Court was right to treat the matter as a PIL in the first place, but confined itself to reviewing only the final High Court order. It found that the insurers had never disputed their obligation to honour the later 2009 and 2014 GIPSA fee schedules, which they admitted following, so there was no live dispute on that score for the High Court to adjudicate. However, the Court held that the High Court should not have gone further and enforced the superseded 2005 fee schedule, since that earlier circular had already been revised by the time the PIL was filed. The Court partly allowed the appeals: it set aside the direction to pay the 2005 rate and the attached interest penalty, while keeping payments already made under that rate undisturbed, and upheld the obligation to honour the 2009 and 2014 schedules.
Even when a court invokes its public-interest jurisdiction for a seemingly good cause, relief granted must still track the actual, current dispute between the parties: a court should not resurrect and enforce an outdated agreement/schedule that has already been superseded by the parties' own later, undisputed practice.
