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 appellant's father had been granted occupancy (tenancy) rights over agricultural land in Karnataka by the Land Tribunal in 1981. Decades of litigation followed over correcting the survey numbers and extent of land covered by that grant, eventually reaching the Karnataka High Court's Single Judge, who disposed of a writ petition in 2013. Three years later, in 2016, the appellant got the Single Judge to add an extra sentence to that 2013 order through an informal oral "for being spoken to" request - without any formal application or notice to the other side - which the opposing parties then challenged before the Division Bench.
The Supreme Court strongly disapproved of the procedure followed: a final court order cannot be altered years later merely by an unrepresented oral mention, without formal application or notice to the affected party, as this violates natural justice and the principle that judgments, once passed, must have stability and finality. Because the correct remedy - a formal review petition or application for clarification - was not used, the Court set aside every order that flowed from this flawed 2016 correction, including the Division Bench's clarification and the review-dismissal order, and restored the original 2008 writ petition to the High Court for a fresh, proper hearing. It also imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the appellant for having caused this confusion by adopting an improper procedure.
Court orders cannot be modified through informal oral mentions after the fact - any correction or clarification to a final order must be sought through the proper formal legal process (such as a review petition), with due notice to all parties, or the modification itself will be struck down regardless of its substance.
