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 moreA 37-year-old driver died when a tanker lorry, driven rashly, hit his two-wheeler. His widow, two minor children and parents sought Rs. 20,00,000 in compensation, claiming he earned Rs. 10,000 a month. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal fixed his income at only Rs. 6,000 (citing lack of evidence) and awarded about Rs. 9,37,000; the Madras High Court raised this slightly to about Rs. 10,51,000 by fixing income at Rs. 7,000, but granted no addition for "future prospects" and separately awarded Rs. 60,000 for "loss of love and affection." The family appealed to the Supreme Court for further enhancement.
The Supreme Court held that a salary certificate and the employer's sworn affidavit clearly proved the victim earned Rs. 10,000 a month, and that figure, not a lower guessed amount, had to be used. It held the High Court committed a legal error by not adding 40% for "future prospects" as mandatorily required for a self-employed/fixed-salary person under 40 years old per the Constitution Bench ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, raising the loss-of-dependency figure to Rs. 18,90,000. On the second issue, the Court held that "loss of love and affection" is not a separate compensable head: per Pranay Sethi and later rulings, that emotional loss is already subsumed within "loss of consortium" (spousal, parental and filial), and awarded separate consortium amounts instead. Total compensation was raised to Rs. 20,80,000, with 9% annual interest from the date of filing given the 15-year delay in the family receiving payment.
In motor-accident death claims, courts must add a mandatory percentage for "future prospects" to a victim's proven income (as fixed by binding Supreme Court precedent) rather than leaving it to discretion, and non-pecuniary loss to family members must be claimed under "loss of consortium," not as a separate "loss of love and affection" head.
