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 moreIn 2005, Vijay Kumar Rastogi, a medical representative, suffered serious injuries including a 25% permanent disability when the car he was travelling in was hit by a rashly driven bus belonging to the respondent Transport Corporation. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal computed his compensation using only his salary income of Rs.44,511 per annum, excluding his income from bank interest and sales commission (Rs.50,556) that was reflected in his income tax return showing a total taxable income of Rs.77,480; the Delhi High Court, while acknowledging this higher taxable income figure, still upheld the Tribunal's lower income figure and only enhanced the interest rate from 7% to 9%, refusing to enhance the compensation itself.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a "manifest error" by accepting the appellant's taxable income figure (Rs.77,480, after tax deduction Rs.72,984) in its own reasoning, yet still affirming the Tribunal's much lower salary-only figure, relying on its precedents (National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indira Srivastava and others), the Court held that "income" for compensation purposes must include all amounts considered for income-tax purposes, including commission and interest, not merely basic salary. Recalculating on this corrected income base, the Court enhanced the "loss of income" and "loss of future income" heads by a combined Rs.2,85,966, with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition until realization. It rejected, however, the appellant's separate claim for Rs.80,000 in car-repair damages, since no document was produced before either the Tribunal, the High Court, or the Supreme Court itself to substantiate that expense. The appeals were allowed to this limited extent, with no order as to costs.
When computing compensation for a motor-accident injury, "income" is not limited to salary alone: it must include all sources reflected in the claimant's income-tax return (such as commission or interest), since that is the income-tax-recognized measure of a person's actual earnings; separately, any additional claim (like property damage) still needs to be backed by actual supporting documents to be awarded.
