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, a practicing advocate who owned 5 acres of agricultural land, applied in December 2010 for a free agricultural electricity connection, but his application was returned for lacking a village officer's signature. He resubmitted it in March 2011 with the defect fixed, but the electricity board took no action; years later, when he finally moved the Madras High Court, the board raised a fresh objection, that he had never paid the Rs. 50 registration fee, and the Madras High Court's Division Bench sided with the board, partly reasoning that as a lawyer he should have known the rules.
The Supreme Court held that the board's own regulations required it to point out all defects in an incomplete application when returning it, and since the only defect flagged in 2011 was the missing signature (not the unpaid fee), the board could not later rely on its own failure to mention the fee issue to deny the appellant seniority for his application. The Court rejected the High Court's reasoning that being a lawyer put the appellant on notice of a procedural fee requirement that had nothing to do with legal expertise. It disposed of the appeal by directing the board to treat the appellant's application as validly registered from 21.03.2011 (the date of resubmission, not the later date claimed by the board), to accept a fresh demand draft for the fee and deposit, and to process the application and communicate any further requirements within three months.
A government authority that fails to point out all the defects in an application when first rejecting it cannot later spring a new, previously unmentioned defect to deny the applicant's claim or seniority: authorities are bound by their own stated reasons for rejection.
