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 property dispute over land in Chhattisgarh had a long litigation history. The original plaintiffs' first suit for declaration, cancellation of a sale deed, and injunction was dismissed for default under Order IX Rule 2 CPC, and their subsequent restoration application was also dismissed and not challenged further. They then filed a fresh suit on the same cause of action, which the Trial Court decreed in their favour; the First Appellate Court reversed this, but the High Court, in second appeal, restored the Trial Court's decree. The defendants (as legal heirs) approached the Supreme Court, arguing the second suit itself was barred.
The Supreme Court held that Order IX Rule 4 CPC gives a plaintiff two independent and non-exclusive remedies after a suit is dismissed for default under Rule 2 or 3 (filing a fresh suit, or applying to restore the original suit) and choosing one does not forfeit the other, following the Privy Council's ruling in Bhudeo v. Musammat Baikunthi and other precedent. This differs from Order IX Rule 9, which expressly bars a fresh suit only where the earlier suit was dismissed under Rule 8 (defendant present, plaintiff absent). The Court also held that a dismissal for default is not a "decree" or "judgment" under Sections 2(2)/2(9) CPC because it does not adjudicate the merits, so it cannot operate as res judicata against a later suit. On the disputed Wajib Dava document (a 1952 relinquishment deed), the Court agreed with the High Court's reasoning and found no ground to interfere, dismissing the petition.
If your civil suit is dismissed for non-appearance and your restoration application also fails, you are not permanently shut out. You can still file a fresh suit (within the limitation period) on the same cause of action, because a mere default dismissal is not a decision on the merits and does not trigger res judicata.
