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 moreRabiya sued to cancel a sale deed and an underlying power of attorney, claiming the power of attorney bearing her name was forged and used to sell her inherited land without her knowledge. The trial court and the first appellate court both dismissed her suit after finding against her on the facts. The High Court of Uttarakhand, in second appeal, reversed this and sent the case back for a fresh trial, holding that since Rabiya was allegedly an illiterate "pardanasheen" (veiled/secluded) woman, the burden of proving the power of attorney genuine should have fallen on the defendants, not on her.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's entire basis for shifting the burden of proof, that Rabiya was a pardanasheen illiterate lady entitled to special protection, had no foundation in her own pleadings; nowhere in her plaint had she claimed this status. Since two courts had already concurrently found against her on the facts, and the High Court's reasoning rested on a claim never actually made in the case, the Supreme Court found the High Court committed a "manifest apparent error" in overturning those concurrent findings and ordering a retrial. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the dismissal of Rabiya's suit was effectively restored, with no order as to costs.
A court cannot invent a special legal status (like "pardanasheen" protection) or shift the burden of proof onto one side based on a fact that was never actually pleaded in the case: relief and reasoning must be tied to what the parties themselves put on record.
