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 appellant, a film producer, borrowed money from the complainant during production of a movie, promising a share of profits in return, and later issued two post-dated cheques of Rs. 24 lakh each toward repayment of the principal, which bounced due to insufficient funds. The complainant alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust; the Madras High Court quashed the breach-of-trust charge (Section 406 IPC) for lack of entrustment but allowed the cheating charge (Section 420 IPC) to continue. The producer appealed to the Supreme Court seeking to have the cheating proceedings quashed too, arguing the dispute was purely civil in nature.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the Section 420 IPC proceedings. It held that dishonest intention for cheating must exist from the very inception of the transaction, and here there was no such indication: the movie was in fact completed and released (unlike a case where funds were taken but the promised project was never delivered), and the arrangement was an investment for a share of future profits, which carried an inherent risk of the venture yielding nothing. The Court further held that the two dishonoured post-dated cheques did not establish cheating because they were issued to discharge an existing liability (repayment of principal), not as an inducement to obtain the original loan, and a post-dated cheque does not represent that funds are available at the time of issuance: dishonour of such a cheque may attract liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act but not the offence of cheating.
A failed business or investment venture, where money was genuinely used for its stated purpose but did not yield the promised returns, is a civil dispute, not criminal cheating; dishonest intent cannot be inferred merely from a later inability to repay or from dishonour of post-dated cheques issued to discharge an existing debt.
