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 respondent-landlord filed eviction proceedings against tenants of two shops in Kolkata for non-payment of rent after a court-appointed Receiver (who had been collecting rent) was discharged. The tenants disputed the rent amount and sought the trial court to determine the correct arrears; the trial court ruled in the tenants' favour and gave them time to pay. The landlord challenged this before the Calcutta High Court, where a Single Judge set aside the trial court's order, holding that the tenants had not properly complied with the strict procedural requirements of Section 7(2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 for disputing and depositing rent. The tenants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court should have referred the question to a larger bench given conflicting precedent, and that the Limitation Act should allow condonation of their delay.
The Supreme Court held that Section 7 of the 1997 Act, unlike its predecessor 1956 Act, which had a specific provision (Section 17(2A)) giving courts unfettered power to extend time for rent deposits, contains no such flexibility beyond a narrow, capped extension. Tracing through several of its own precedents on similar rent laws in other states, the Court concluded that where a statute does not expressly provide for extension or condonation of delay, courts cannot import the general Limitation Act to rescue a tenant who misses the strict deposit deadline. Since the tenants had neither deposited the admitted rent nor properly complied with Section 7(2)'s conditions in time, the High Court was correct to strike off their defence. Both tagged appeals were dismissed, and the case was sent back to the trial court to proceed with the eviction suit.
Tenants disputing a rent amount under rent-control laws must strictly follow the specific procedural deadlines and deposit requirements written into that particular state law: general extension-of-time principles from the Limitation Act cannot be used to excuse missing them unless the specific rent law itself allows for it.
