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 employees of a contractor doing interior decoration work at a shop in Pune were electrocuted and fell from a height of about 12 feet while working on a signboard using an iron ladder, and later died of their injuries. About two months later, an FIR was filed alleging the appellants (the contractor and the store's operations manager) had failed to provide safety equipment like helmets, belts and shoes despite knowing the work was risky. The trial court dismissed the appellants' applications to be discharged from the case, and the Bombay High Court upheld that dismissal in a criminal revision, leading to this appeal.
The Supreme Court examined whether the facts, even taken at face value, could support a charge under Section 304 Part II IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and distinguished the case from the Bhopal gas tragedy precedent (Keshub Mahindra), where the accused ran a plant with known operational defects and omitted safety measures they had direct control over. Here, the deaths resulted from an accidental electrocution while workers used a ladder for signboard work. The Court found this was "purely accidental" and that no prima facie case of culpability, even under the lesser offence of causing death by negligence (Section 304-A), could be made out against the appellants. It held that both the trial court and the High Court had erred in refusing to discharge the appellants, set aside both orders, allowed the discharge applications, and discharged the appellants from the case entirely.
Not every workplace accident resulting in death automatically supports a criminal charge of culpable homicide. Courts will discharge an accused at the threshold stage where the facts show a genuine accident rather than a reckless or knowing disregard for safety that caused the deaths.
