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 an earlier judgment dated 9 January 2015, the Supreme Court had ruled on a batch of appeals about whether certain Office Memoranda gave Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe bank officers a right to reserved promotion quotas, concluding the memoranda gave only a "concession," not a binding reservation. The banks and the Union of India later filed review petitions arguing the earlier judgment's operative directions (paragraphs 33-37) contained an error apparent on the record, inconsistent with its own reasoning elsewhere in the judgment.
The Court held that it has the inherent power to recall or correct its own order where there is a clear mistake and perpetuating it would cause a miscarriage of justice: this power exists to avoid injustice, not merely to re-argue a settled case. Examining the original judgment, the Bench found the operative paragraphs did contain an error on the face of the record that was inconsistent with the Court's own reasoning on reservation versus mere "concession." It therefore allowed the review petitions, deleted the problematic paragraphs (33-37) of the earlier judgment, and substituted new operative paragraphs clarifying that it is for the State/Banks, not the courts, to decide whether to introduce reservation in promotions, while leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
A review petition is not an appeal and will only succeed where there is a genuine, demonstrable error apparent on the face of the record in the Court's own earlier order, not simply because a party disagrees with the outcome. It also illustrates that courts generally cannot compel the government or a public employer to create a reservation policy; they can only enforce one that already exists.
