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 moreAfter the appellant's wife died in 2007, her father lodged an FIR alleging dowry harassment and dowry death against the appellant and his family under Sections 201, 304B and 498A IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police investigated and filed a final closure report, which the Chief Judicial Magistrate accepted, finding the wife had died of illness and that no case of harassment or dowry death was made out; this was confirmed in revision by the Additional Sessions Judge. The complainant then approached the High Court, which set aside the closure and directed reconsideration of his "protest petition" as though it were a fresh complaint warranting the Magistrate taking cognizance, prompting the husband's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined what legally qualifies as a "complaint" under Section 2(d) of the CrPC when a complainant protests a police closure report, holding that a protest petition can only be treated as a complaint if it actually satisfies a complaint's essential requirements (such as specifying facts constituting the offence and naming witnesses): here, the protest petition lacked even a list of witnesses and was essentially just a restatement of objections to the final report, not a proper complaint. The Court also flagged that the High Court's order had effectively reopened the case against the appellant's relatives too, even though they were never made parties before the High Court, making that part of the order baseless. Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court held the High Court erred in intervening, set aside its order, and allowed the appeal, while expressly leaving open the complainant's right to file a proper fresh complaint if he chooses.
When police close a criminal investigation with a final report and a complainant wants to challenge that closure, simply filing objections (a "protest petition") is not automatically treated as a valid complaint: it must independently meet the legal requirements of a complaint (stating the offence and evidence/witnesses) before a Magistrate can use it to reopen the case.
