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 moreThree cooperative housing societies of slum dwellers (Adarsh, Saidham and Maruti) were in a long-running dispute over competing slum rehabilitation proposals on adjoining municipal plots in Mumbai, each accusing the other's documentation of fraud. After years of litigation before the Slum Rehabilitation Authority and the Bombay High Court, the Supreme Court in 2018 directed the authorities to work out a settlement allowing each society to develop its own plot independently, which all three societies and the municipal corporation accepted by affidavit. One society (Maruti) later tried to withdraw its consent, submitting a letter purportedly signed by 172 slum dwellers.
The Supreme Court appointed a Local Commissioner to verify the authenticity of the withdrawal letter. The Commissioner's report found that only 6 of the roughly 172 claimed signatures were genuine, with the rest "plucked" from an earlier, unrelated letter, making the withdrawal letter a fabricated document. The Court held that since the settlement had already been validly accepted by all stakeholders, was fair, and allowing independent development would cause no prejudice to any of the slum dwellers (whose housing had already been delayed over 14 years by the litigation), the application to withdraw consent was rejected. The Court allowed the application to implement the settlement and disposed of the Special Leave Petitions in terms of that settlement, with parties bearing their own costs.
A party cannot unilaterally back out of a settlement it has formally accepted before a court by submitting a dubious, unverified document: courts will scrutinize such last-minute reversals (here, through an independent Commissioner's investigation) and will enforce a fair, already-accepted settlement, especially where delay is harming vulnerable parties.
