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 appellants claimed joint ancestral ownership of agricultural land along with two co-sharers, alleging that those co-sharers secretly and fraudulently sold the land via a 1996 registered sale deed by forging the appellants' signatures. On learning of the sale years later, the appellants filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction. One of the purchasers applied to have the plaint rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code, arguing the suit was time-barred; the trial court rejected this application, but the Gujarat High Court reversed and allowed the plaint to be rejected.
The Supreme Court held that when deciding an application to reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d), only the averments in the plaint itself are relevant, not the defendant's version of events in the written statement. Examining the plaint, the Court found the appellants had asserted they filed suit promptly upon discovering the fraudulent sale deed, making the limitation question a genuine triable issue rather than one that could be decided at the threshold. The Court therefore reversed the High Court's view and restored the trial court's order rejecting the application to dismiss the plaint, allowing the suit to proceed on its merits. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
A court deciding whether to throw out a lawsuit at the very start (for being time-barred or similar) must look only at what the plaintiff has alleged in the complaint itself: if those allegations, taken at face value, raise a genuine factual dispute (such as when fraud was actually discovered), the case must be allowed to proceed to a full trial rather than being dismissed early.
