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 moreSayona Colors Pvt. Ltd. claimed Rs. 28.2 crore from United India Insurance after a fire broke out in its godown in March 2011, days after it had sharply increased its insurance coverage and taken out an additional policy. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) partly allowed the claim and ordered the insurer to pay about Rs. 3.33 crore. The insurer appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the fire was a deliberate act of arson for fraudulent gain, not an accidental short circuit, pointing to forensic (Truth Labs) findings of an accelerant and to fake supplier invoices used to inflate the claimed stock loss.
The Supreme Court allowed the insurer's appeal and set aside the NCDRC's order entirely. It found the forensic evidence (kerosene residue at the fire's origin, no signs of electrical short circuit) and the surveyor's findings (non-existent or unrelated "suppliers," fabricated invoices, and manipulated accounts) conclusively established the fire was a deliberate act of arson, not an accident. Applying the principle that fraud vitiates all solemn acts, the Court held that once a claim is founded on fraud, the entire claim collapses. There is no scope for partial or equitable relief just because some physical loss occurred. The claim was rejected in full, the insurer was absolved of liability, and any deposited amount was ordered refunded with interest. The Court also directed the Ahmedabad Police Commissioner to set up a Special Investigation Team to probe the fraud.
An insurance claim proven to be founded on fraud is unenforceable in its entirety. Courts will not award even partial compensation for genuine-looking physical damage if the underlying claim itself is fraudulent, since insurance cannot be used as a tool for unjust enrichment.
