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 appellant's predecessor owned land that was declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, and the State claimed to have taken possession of it in 1982. After the Ceiling Act was repealed in Uttar Pradesh in 1999, the original owner filed a writ petition arguing that since she remained in possession of the land even after repeal, the ceiling proceedings against her had lapsed. The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition in 2008, and a subsequent review application against that dismissal was also rejected by the High Court in December 2008. The legal heirs then appealed to the Supreme Court, but only against the review order, not the original dismissal.
The Supreme Court held that because the appeal was directed only against the order rejecting the review application (and not the original order), its scrutiny was confined to whether that original order suffered from an "error apparent on the face of the record" under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the narrow standard for review, not whether the original decision was correct on merits. The Court found the appellants were effectively trying to re-argue the entire original case as if it were a regular appeal, which is impermissible in a review-arising appeal. Since the High Court had already found that the original owner failed to prove continued possession on the date of repeal, and no apparent error was shown, the Supreme Court concluded the review was rightly rejected and upheld it.
A review petition is not a second chance to re-argue a case on its merits: it is a very narrow remedy limited to correcting an error that is obvious on the face of the record; if you want to challenge the original order itself, you must appeal that order directly, not just the later rejection of your review application.
