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 moreTwo CBI officers on deputation, Vinod Kumar Pandey (then Inspector) and Neeraj Kumar (then Joint Director), were accused by two individuals, Sheesh Ram Saini and Vijay Aggarwal, of criminal offences including wrongful confinement, forgery and abuse of office. The Delhi High Court's Single Judge, back in 2006, had directed the Delhi Police to register FIRs against the officers based on these complaints and have them investigated by the Special Cell. The CBI officers appealed against these directions, arguing that a departmental preliminary inquiry had already found the allegations baseless and that mandatory FIR registration was not warranted.
The Supreme Court broadly upheld registration of the FIRs, relying on the settled principle from Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh that registration of an FIR is mandatory once information discloses a cognizable offence, and that no preliminary inquiry is a precondition in such cases. It held that the internal CBI inquiry conducted by the Joint Director could be treated only as a preliminary inquiry, not as conclusive proof of innocence, and could be looked into by the investigating officer without being treated as final. The Court modified the High Court's directions to clarify that, since the case did not concern terrorism, the Delhi Police itself (not the Special Cell) would investigate, through an officer of at least Assistant Commissioner rank, to be completed preferably within three months. It also directed that the officers must join and cooperate with the investigation, and that no coercive action (including arrest) would be taken against them unless the investigating officer found custodial interrogation necessary.
Once a complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the police must register an FIR: an internal departmental inquiry that clears the accused beforehand does not exempt them from investigation, though the courts can still protect against arrest while the accused cooperates with the probe.
