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 moreThis Special Leave Petition (filed by Basanti Sahoo, the "respondent-returned candidate" whose election was under challenge) was heard and disposed of together with a connected Civil Appeal (arising out of SLP(C) No. 4129/2026) filed by Ramadebi Rautray, the rival election petitioner. Both had been elected Panchayat Samiti members in 2022 and were the only two contestants for the post of Chairman of Delang Panchayat Samiti, which Basanti Sahoo won. Rautray successfully challenged Sahoo's election before the Election Tribunal on the ground that Sahoo was disqualified under Section 45(1)(v) of the Orissa Panchayat Samiti Act, 1959 for having a third child after the cut-off date; the Election Tribunal not only invalidated Sahoo's election but also declared Rautray duly elected as Chairman, a declaration the Election Appellate Tribunal and the High Court later set aside in favour of a fresh election.
In the connected Civil Appeal, the Supreme Court held that since Rautray and Sahoo were the only two contestants for the Chairman's post, and Sahoo's disqualification had been conclusively affirmed, no other candidate remained in the fray, so Sections 44-E and 44-J(2)(b) of the 1959 Act empowered the Election Tribunal to directly declare Rautray duly elected rather than ordering a fresh election. The Court found that after more than three years of litigation, forcing Rautray to contest a fresh election despite her successful challenge would be a travesty of justice, and restored the Election Tribunal's original declaration in her favour. As a direct consequence of allowing that connected appeal, the Court held that Basanti Sahoo's own Special Leave Petition (SLP(C) No. 3528/2026), filed to challenge the same set of findings, had no independent merit and dismissed it, with costs made easy.
In an election dispute involving only two contesting candidates, once the winning candidate is validly disqualified, the tribunal can directly declare the sole remaining contestant elected instead of ordering a fresh election, especially where years of litigation have already passed and a re-election would unfairly deny the successful challenger the fruits of her case.
