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 moreSBI had a mortgage over a flat used as security by the directors of a company that defaulted on its loan. Two individuals claiming rights over the same flat under an unregistered Memorandum of Understanding challenged the bank's recovery action, first before the Debts Recovery Tribunal/Appellate Tribunal (which ruled against them), and then in a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court disposed of the writ petition by giving the claimants liberty to approach "a proper forum" to litigate their claim, and directed the bank to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs in an interest-bearing account pending that litigation. The bank appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 bars civil courts (and by extension, this kind of civil adjudication route) from entertaining disputes over matters that a DRT/DRAT is empowered to decide, so the High Court's direction permitting the claimants to pursue a separate civil forum was legally untenable. The Court found the High Court had failed to engage with the concurrent factual findings of the DRT and DRAT, which had already rejected the claimants' title. Rather than deciding the underlying title dispute itself, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, restored the original writ petition to the High Court's file for a fresh decision on its own merits, and separately held that the High Court's direction to deposit Rs. 25 lakhs was unwarranted and set that aside too. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, and the High Court was requested to dispose of the restored writ petition expeditiously.
Once a bank initiates recovery action under the SARFAESI Act, disputes about rights in the mortgaged property generally must be pursued through the DRT/DRAT framework, not through a parallel civil law route: courts cannot simply let claimants "go litigate elsewhere" when a specialised tribunal already has jurisdiction over the issue.
