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 moreThe Competent Authority under SAFEMA ordered forfeiture of certain properties belonging to the appellants in 1998. The appellants appealed to the Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property, but did so 81 days after being served the order, well beyond the 45-day limitation period and even beyond the outer 60-day limit up to which delay could be condoned. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as time-barred, and both the High Court's Single Judge and Division Bench upheld that dismissal.
The Supreme Court examined the appellants' own admission in their Tribunal filings that they had received the forfeiture order on 29-30 July 1998, which fixed the start of the limitation period. Since the appeal was filed on the 81st day, beyond the Tribunal's power to condone delay (capped at 60 days under SAFEMA), the Court held the question of whether service of the order was technically proper was irrelevant once actual knowledge was admitted. The Court found this was a concurrent finding of fact by the Tribunal and both levels of the High Court, which was neither illegal nor perverse, and therefore declined to interfere. The appeals were dismissed.
Statutory limitation periods for appeals, especially where the law fixes an outer limit beyond which delay cannot be condoned at all, are strictly enforced, once a person admits to having actual knowledge of an order, technical objections about the manner of its service will not revive a time-barred appeal.
