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 more44 buyers had booked office/commercial units in a mixed residential-commercial project called "Intellicity" being developed by the respondent builder, under Builder-Buyer Agreements promising possession within four years. When the builder failed to deliver possession (the project remained at the excavation stage) the 44 buyers filed a joint consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking a refund with interest and compensation, and also sought permission under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act to bring the complaint as a "class action" on behalf of all similarly-placed buyers of commercial units in the project, not just the 44 named complainants. The National Commission refused to allow the class action and dismissed the complaint, reasoning that since a shop/commercial unit is presumed to be for "commercial purpose" (and thus outside the Act's definition of "consumer") unless the buyer specifically shows it was for earning a livelihood through self-employment, and since it was not shown that all the project's commercial buyers (not just these 44) had booked their units for that purpose, a class action on behalf of everyone could not be maintained.
The Supreme Court held the National Commission's reasoning was erroneous. Relying on its own earlier ruling in Chairman, Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. T.N. Ganapathy and the National Commission's own Full Bench decision in Ambrish Kumar Shukla vs. Ferrous Infrastructure, the Court clarified that a representative/class action does not require every represented person to share the identical cause of action: what matters is "sameness of interest," meaning a common grievance against the same opposite party (here, the builder's common failure to deliver possession on time to all buyers in the same project) and a common relief sought (refund with interest). The National Commission had wrongly required proof that every single commercial-unit buyer in the project had bought their unit specifically for self-employment/livelihood purposes before it would even allow the class action to proceed: that inquiry (whether a given buyer qualifies as a "consumer" under the Act) is a merits question to be decided case-by-case for those who actually join the class, not a threshold bar to allowing the class action itself. The Court therefore allowed the appeal, held the Section 12(1)(c) application maintainable, set aside the National Commission's order, and restored the complaint to be proceeded with on merits.
When a group of buyers in the same real-estate project share a common grievance against the same builder (like delayed possession) and seek the same relief, they can bring a joint "class action" consumer complaint without first having to prove that every other buyer in the project also qualifies individually as a "consumer": that question can be sorted out later, case by case, rather than blocking the class action from being heard at all.
