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 appellants, a husband and wife, bought an e-stamp paper worth Rs. 28,10,000 in July 2016 to purchase a property in Delhi, but the sale deed's execution was delayed because their loan had not closed in time. The broker holding the e-stamp paper then reported it misplaced, forcing the couple to buy a fresh e-stamp paper and complete the sale, while also filing a police complaint and public notices about the lost one. The Collector of Stamps rejected their request to refund the duty paid on the misplaced (now unusable) e-stamp paper, and the Delhi High Court's Single Judge and Division Bench gave only partial relief, ordering the principal refunded but denying interest.
The Supreme Court held that once petitioners proved (through the police complaint, newspaper notices, and indemnity bond) that the original e-stamp paper was lost and could not be misused, the State had no constitutional authority under Article 265 to keep money collected without legal basis, so retaining the stamp duty was impermissible. Relying on the doctrine of restitution and precedent that money wrongfully retained by the State must carry interest, the Court found the High Court erred in denying interest merely because the refund wasn't explicitly provided for in the Stamp Act. It calculated interest at 8% (later reduced for a period) on the amounts through various stages, totaling Rs. 4,35,968.58, and directed payment within two months.
When a government authority holds money it had no legal right to collect or retain (such as stamp duty on a lost, unused e-stamp paper), citizens are entitled not just to a refund of the principal but to interest for the entire period of wrongful retention: the absence of an express refund provision in the statute doesn't bar this constitutional right.
