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 moreA partition suit filed in 1973 over joint family property was decreed in the plaintiffs' favour by the trial court in 1976. The defendants' First Appeal remained pending in the Patna High Court for over 40 years, during which they filed several applications to bring additional evidence (sale deeds) on record. In 2017, the High Court, on a day when no one appeared for the plaintiffs (respondents in that appeal), admitted this additional evidence and, on the very same day, used it to allow the appeal and dismiss the original partition suit, without giving the plaintiffs any chance to respond to the new evidence.
The Supreme Court held that whenever an appellate court admits additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, the party against whom that evidence is used must be given an opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal or otherwise explain it: a principle it traced to earlier precedents including Land Acquisition Officer v. H. Narayanaiah and Shalimar Chemical Works v. Surendra Oil. Because the High Court had admitted the additional evidence and decided the appeal in the very same breath, without affording that opportunity, its judgment could not stand. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment and decree, and remanded the case for the High Court to decide the appeal afresh after giving the plaintiffs a chance to rebut the additional evidence: expressly refraining from commenting on the actual merits of the partition dispute itself.
Even late in a decades-old case, and even where the other side failed to show up in court, basic fairness requires giving a litigant the chance to respond to new evidence before it is used against them: a court cannot admit evidence and rule on its basis in the same stroke.
