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 long-running commercial dispute over unpaid dues and undelivered flats in a Mumbai building led to multiple suits filed around 2000. The respondents did not file their written statement (formal defence) for years, and when the trial court recorded this and listed the case for an ex-parte decree, the respondents suddenly applied to condone a delay of several years in filing it. The Bombay High Court accepted their explanation and allowed them to file a late defence, even though an identical request in a related, twin suit between the same parties had already been rejected and upheld all the way to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning, that the delay could be excused by "balancing rights and equities" because summons were allegedly served late, was legally unsound and ignored the clear scheme of Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, which normally caps the time to file a written statement at 90 days except in exceptionally hard cases. The Court noted that even calculating from the date the High Court accepted as the service date, the delay still exceeded five years without any real explanation, and that the High Court had failed to notice its own coordinate bench had rejected the identical plea in the companion suit. Relying on Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that extensions beyond 90 days must be given sparingly, not routinely. It therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the respondents' application for condonation of delay, with no order as to costs.
Courts will not mechanically excuse years-long delays in filing a defence; a litigant seeking such leniency must give a specific, convincing explanation, and the same facts cannot be used to get a different outcome in parallel, otherwise-identical proceedings.
