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 moreBank of India had auctioned a mortgaged property to recover a loan default and appointed Yadav Consultancy Services as a "Court Commissioner" to guard the property pending handover to the auction purchasers. After possession was handed to the auction purchasers in November 2006, a dispute arose over who was liable to keep paying the Commissioner's security charges: the Bank or the auction purchasers. Yadav Consultancy, after years of litigation before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) and its Appellate Tribunal, instead sought arbitration before a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Facilitation Council, which awarded it over Rs. 1.62 crore plus 24% interest against the Bank. The High Court of Bombay upheld that award, prompting the Bank's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that once the DRT had ruled in 2008 that the Commissioner's charges after a certain date were payable only by the auction purchasers (an order Yadav Consultancy never appealed and in fact acted upon), that finding attained finality and could not be reopened. The High Court was wrong to hold that the DRT lacked jurisdiction to decide this. Because the dispute had already been lawfully adjudicated by DRT/DRAT, quasi-judicial bodies with the trappings of civil courts, the MSME Facilitation Council had no jurisdiction to arbitrate the same claim afresh. The Court set aside both the High Court's judgment and the Council's award, allowing the Bank to recover amounts already paid out and permitting it to withdraw the balance deposited in court, while leaving Yadav Consultancy free to pursue the auction purchasers directly for any post-2008 charges.
Once a competent tribunal's order is accepted without challenge and acted upon, a party cannot later go "forum shopping" to a different authority (like an MSME Council) to relitigate the same issue, doing so undermines the finality of judicial and quasi-judicial orders.
