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 moreA trust founded CMJ University in Meghalaya under a 2009 State Act. Years later, the State Government dissolved the university under Section 48 of that Act after issuing show-cause notices. The trust's writ petition succeeded before a Single Judge, who quashed the dissolution, but the Division Bench of the Meghalaya High Court set that aside and remanded the matter for fresh consideration instead of deciding it outright. Both the trust (challenging the remand and seeking restoration of the university) and the State (challenging the remand itself) appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the University's Chancellor had been appointed without following the procedure mandated by Section 14(1) of the Act, rendering that appointment void from the start. It further held that the State's 2014 dissolution order had been passed in strict compliance with Section 48 of the Act and with the Supreme Court's own earlier directions in related proceedings. Since the High Court's Division Bench had already found the State's procedure proper, sending the matter back to a Single Judge for reconsideration would have been an empty, pointless exercise, so the remand order itself was set aside. Consequently, the trust's appeal was dismissed, the State's appeal was allowed, and the dissolution of CMJ University was affirmed.
Once a court has already examined and approved the correctness of a government body's decision-making process, remanding the same matter for a fresh look at the merits serves no purpose. Courts review whether a lawful process was followed, not simply the outcome, and won't repeat findings they have already made.
