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 moreHEWO, a welfare society of HUDA (Haryana Urban Development Authority) employees, allotted two "super deluxe" flats: one to a sitting governing-body member and one by draw of lots to a subordinate of that same member. Dinesh Kumar, another eligible member who had also applied, challenged both allotments as favouritism and ineligibility, but the Punjab and Haryana High Court's Division Bench dismissed his writ petition somewhat cursorily, holding he was estopped from challenging since he had also participated in the draw.
The Supreme Court agreed the writ was maintainable since the society administered housing on land allotted by the government and its office-bearers, though acting in an ex officio capacity, owed a fiduciary duty of fairness and transparency. On the merits, the Court found the governing-body member did not even meet the minimum six-month deputation eligibility when the flat was conceded to him, making that allotment a "clear act of favouritism." It also found the subordinate beneficiary was outside the stipulated pay-band and his application was undated and lacked proof of the earnest-money deposit, making his allotment untenable too. The Court set aside both allotments, ordered a fresh draw among the remaining eligible applicants (with a lower priority slot reserved for the appellant if only one remains), directed refund of amounts paid by the ousted allottees, and imposed costs on the society and the two individual respondents for the "gross abuse of powers."
Even a nominally private welfare society can be held to constitutional standards of fairness under Article 226 if it administers a public benefit (like government-allotted land/housing) to government employees; office-bearers cannot use their position to secure preferential treatment for themselves or their subordinates.
