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 appellants had entered into a joint venture agreement (JVA) in 2010 with a company to jointly develop a plot of land in Kanpur, with the appellants contributing the land and the company undertaking construction, and a security deposit arrangement built into the agreement. When the venture did not proceed as planned, the company lodged an FIR against the appellants in 2021 alleging cheating, criminal breach of trust and forgery under the IPC. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the appellants' plea to quash the FIR, and they appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court examined the JVA and the FIR closely and found no false representation by the appellants about their title to the land, no allegation that the history of title recorded in the JVA was false, and no misstatement about pending litigation: the agreement in fact contained an indemnity clause anticipating exactly such disputes. It held that the security amount described in the JVA was adjustable against sale proceeds rather than an unconditional refundable deposit, so no criminal breach of trust arose, and there was nothing to show the appellants harboured any dishonest intention from the outset. Concluding that the dispute was a straightforward contractual disagreement over non-fulfilment of obligations, for which civil remedies exist, the Court held that continuing criminal proceedings amounted to an abuse of the process of law, allowed the appeal, and quashed the FIR and all proceedings arising from it.
A commercial or contractual dispute, such as a breakdown of a joint venture, should ordinarily be pursued through civil remedies, not converted into a criminal case; courts will quash an FIR where the facts disclose only a civil cause of action and no genuine dishonest intention at the inception of the agreement.
