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 moreIn a decades-old land title suit from Bihar, the trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, but the First Appellate Court reversed it and decreed the suit in their favour. Several of the original defendants had died during the pendency of that first appeal, and their lawyers never informed the court or the other side of the deaths, so their legal heirs were never substituted on record. When the defendants challenged the decree in Second Appeal, the Patna High Court held that because the decree was "joint and indivisible," the failure to substitute the deceased defendants' heirs meant the entire first appeal had automatically abated, and it set aside the decree in the plaintiffs' favour on that technical ground.
The Supreme Court examined Order XXII Rule 10A CPC, which obliges a deceased litigant's own pleader (lawyer) to inform the court of the death, and held that this duty is one of candour owed to the court as an officer of the court: merely stating the fact of death is not enough; the pleader must also furnish the names of the legal representatives so the other side can seek substitution. Applying the legal maxim that no one should benefit from their own wrong ("nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propia"), the Court held that a party (here, the defendants' side) whose own lawyer failed to disclose the death cannot then turn around and claim abatement as a "right" or advantage flowing from that very non-disclosure: abatement is a matter of judicial discretion, not an automatic entitlement, especially where the other side had no way of knowing about the death. The Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the second appeal for fresh hearing on the abatement and other substantive issues, directing the High Court to decide it within three months given the suit's age (since 1984).
A lawyer has a personal duty to promptly inform the court when their own client dies during litigation; if that duty is neglected, the other side cannot be penalized by automatic "abatement" of the case. Courts will not let a party profit from its own lawyer's failure to disclose a death.
