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 moreG. Arumugam had sued the Gram Panchayat for declaration and possession of land which the Panchayat claimed was public ("Natham Poramboke") land. After the Trial Court dismissed the suit but the first appellate court reversed and decreed in Arumugam's favour, the Panchayat's Executive Officer at the time took no steps to challenge this for years, reportedly due to deliberate lapses (that officer was later suspended from service on corruption allegations). By the time a new Executive Officer discovered the proceedings during execution/eviction steps and filed a second appeal, there was a delay of 1,373 days, which the High Court refused to condone.
The Supreme Court held that the explanation on record, that the delay was caused by the deliberate lapses of a since-suspended, allegedly corrupt Panchayat officer, not any fault of the public body itself, warranted a lenient, justice-oriented approach. Relying on its earlier decision in State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, the Court reiterated that where government or public officials have caused delay that could defeat justice, courts should condone even a very large delay so the matter can be decided on its merits, particularly where the larger public interest (here, a public panchayat's land) is involved. The Court accordingly set aside the High Court's refusal, condoned the 1,373-day delay in filing the second appeal, and remitted the second appeal itself back to the High Court to be decided on merits.
Courts will take a more forgiving view of delay caused by the negligence or misconduct of a government official (rather than the litigant/public body itself), especially where public interest is at stake, so that cases get decided on their substance rather than being thrown out on a technicality.
