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 moreUsha Devi @ Usha Kumari's appeal was one of at least two connected matters (with Sangeeta Devi's SLP, Diary No. 37207/2024, appearing as a co-respondent name in Usha Devi's own case and as a lead petitioner in the governing judgment) arising from a Full Bench reference at the Patna High Court on how to interpret Sections 44(3) and 70(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006: specifically, whether a no-confidence motion against a Panchayat/Zila Parishad office-holder requires a "majority of members present and voting" or a "majority of the total elected membership" to succeed. The case's official category (Elections to Gram Panchayats, Zila Parishads, Municipal Corporations, and similar local bodies) and its unusually large list of 73 named respondents indicate it was part of a wider cluster of Bihar local-body no-confidence disputes funnelled into the same Supreme Court reference.
In the governing judgment (2026 INSC 308), the Supreme Court held, reversing the Full Bench of the Patna High Court, that a no-confidence motion under Sections 44(3) and 70(4) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 requires the support of a majority of the total elected membership of the body, not merely a majority of members present and voting at the meeting; the Court reasoned that a stricter threshold is necessary to protect elected office-holders from being removed by a thinly-attended, opportunistic meeting. Usha Devi's own appeal (delay condoned, leave granted) was disposed of on 19-06-2026 applying this same ruling to her case's facts, per the official case-status record, though the short-form order recording that specific disposal was not independently retrievable as a distinct document through the sources available to this pipeline.
A no-confidence motion against an elected Panchayat or Zila Parishad office-holder in Bihar needs the backing of a majority of the body's total elected members, not just a majority of whoever happens to attend the meeting: a higher bar meant to prevent removals by a poorly-attended, snap vote. Separately: when the Supreme Court's official record confirms a case was disposed "in terms of" an earlier lead judgment, it's normal for the two documents' effective dates and bench compositions to differ: that's a feature of how batched/tagged matters are cleared, not a sign of an error.
