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 a Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board lineman died in 2011, two women claiming to be his daughters obtained a Succession Certificate for his retiral benefits, asserting that their mother (his wife) had predeceased him. The appellants, including a minor daughter through her guardian, challenged this certificate, arguing the application contained false and misleading information, including wrongly describing the minor's mother (the deceased's actual widow) as the wife of an entirely different man. Their application to set aside the ex parte succession order was rejected by the trial court, the appellate court, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court, primarily on the ground that the minor was not a "necessary or proper party" to those proceedings.
The Supreme Court held that a Succession Certificate can be revoked under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act where the original application was defective or suppressed material facts, and found that the discrepancies here, particularly the false description of the minor's mother's identity, squarely justified revocation. It held that the minor had never been impleaded in the original succession proceedings, depriving her of any opportunity to be heard, and that a minor cannot reasonably be expected to respond to a public notice or independently initiate legal proceedings to protect her rights. The Court clarified that proceedings under Order IX Rule XIII CPC (to set aside an ex parte order for sufficient cause) are broader in scope than a regular appeal under Section 96 CPC, and found the lower courts' reasoning legally unsustainable. It allowed the appeal, quashed the Succession Certificate, and restored the matter for fresh proceedings, directing the parties to cooperate for expeditious disposal given the long pendency since 2011.
A minor's legal interests cannot be extinguished simply because they were not made a party to proceedings that directly affect them. Courts will set aside orders obtained through material misstatements of fact, especially where a vulnerable party like a minor had no real opportunity to be heard.
