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 moreAfter her husband's death in 1961, Parvatewwa allegedly adopted Channappa. Decades later, in 2002, she filed a suit seeking to declare the adoption deed void, which was ultimately dismissed on limitation grounds. While that first suit's appeal was still pending, she filed a second suit in 2007 against Channappa claiming ownership and recovery of possession of a specific property, alleging illegal dispossession. Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed this second suit as barred by res judicata and Order II Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (since it overlapped with matters that could and should have been raised in the first suit), but the Karnataka High Court, in a second appeal, reversed these concurrent findings.
The Supreme Court held that the second suit was indeed barred by the principles of res judicata, constructive res judicata, and Order II Rule 2 CPC, since the parties, subject matter, and issues substantially overlapped with the first suit and could have been litigated there. It further held that the High Court had exceeded its limited jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC (second appeal), which permits interference only on a "substantial question of law," not a re-appreciation of facts. Citing precedent, the Court reiterated that a second appellate court is not meant to conduct a "third trial on facts," and since the High Court had not shown the concurrent findings of the courts below to be perverse or contrary to law, its interference was impermissible. The High Court's judgment was set aside and the second suit was dismissed, restoring the concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court.
A litigant cannot split a single cause of action across multiple suits and relitigate matters that were or ought to have been raised earlier, and a High Court exercising second appeal jurisdiction cannot re-examine settled facts unless a genuine substantial question of law is shown, not merely disagreement with the lower courts' factual findings.
