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 temple (the appellant) filed a civil suit for eviction against the respondent, and won both at the trial court and in the first appeal. The respondent then filed a second appeal before the Madras High Court, which allowed the appeal and dismissed the temple's suit, but only framed the "substantial questions of law" required for a second appeal at the time of delivering its final judgment, rather than at the admission stage as the Code of Civil Procedure requires. The temple appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing this procedure was legally improper regardless of which side the High Court ultimately favoured.
The Supreme Court held that Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that a High Court must formulate the substantial question(s) of law at the admission stage (or, under the proviso to Section 100(5), with recorded reasons if an additional question arises later): it cannot decide a second appeal on questions framed for the first time in the final judgment itself, since this denies the respondent the opportunity under Section 100(5) to object that the framed question does not actually arise. Relying on its own recent precedent (Surat Singh v. Siri Bhagwan), the Court found the Madras High Court's second-appeal judgment could not be sustained for failing to follow this mandatory procedure. It allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case for the second appeal to be decided afresh, properly framing substantial questions of law first, while expressly declining to express any opinion on the merits of the underlying eviction dispute, and asking the High Court to decide the matter expeditiously within six months given its age.
In a second appeal, a High Court must formulate the substantial question(s) of law at the admission stage (not retroactively while writing the final judgment), failing to follow this mandatory procedure under Section 100 CPC can get even a final second-appeal judgment set aside on procedural grounds alone, regardless of which party it favoured on the merits.
