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 morePunjab National Bank (PNB) had lent money to a borrower company that defaulted, leading PNB to invoke the SARFAESI Act and auction the mortgaged assets. Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. participated in the public auction, but a dispute arose over the forfeiture of its deposit under Rule 9(5) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules. Instead of challenging that forfeiture before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (the statutory forum under Section 17(1) of the SARFAESI Act), the appellant filed a writ petition directly in the Delhi High Court, which was dismissed by both the Single Judge and the Division Bench (in an LPA) on the ground that an effective alternative statutory remedy existed.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was right to dismiss the writ petition because the SARFAESI Act provides a complete statutory mechanism, an application under Section 17(1) before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, for challenging actions like the forfeiture of a deposit, and courts should ordinarily require litigants to exhaust such alternative remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226. While the power under Article 226 is wide and not expressly limited, the Court reiterated that High Courts must exercise self-restraint and decline to entertain writ petitions where a specific, effective statutory remedy is available. The Court found no ground to interfere with the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal, but as a concession granted the appellant 45 days' liberty to file an application before the DRT, directing that the Tribunal decide it on merits uninfluenced by the observations made by the High Court or the Supreme Court.
When a specialised law (like the SARFAESI Act) provides its own dedicated forum and remedy for a grievance, courts will generally decline to intervene through a writ petition, and a litigant who skips that statutory remedy risks having their writ petition dismissed, though courts may still allow a fresh window to use the proper forum.
