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 moreTwo related civil suits over a house, one for declaration of title and possession, the other for a perpetual injunction, were decreed in the plaintiffs' favour by the trial court. While the defendants' first appeals were pending before the High Court, both sides separately applied under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC (which governs when additional evidence can be let in at the appellate stage) to place fresh documents on record. The High Court allowed only the plaintiffs/respondents' application, reserved the effect of that evidence for the final hearing, never ruled on the defendants/appellants' similar application, and ultimately dismissed both appeals, affirming the trial court's decree.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed a jurisdictional error by deciding the respondents' Order 41 Rule 27 application in isolation, without following the settled three-step approach for admitting additional evidence at the appellate stage laid down in its own precedents (North Eastern Railway Administration v. Bhagwan Das, Shalimar Chemical Works v. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills, and Corporation of Madras v. M. Parthasarathy). Because this procedural error affected the fairness of how the whole appeal was decided, the Court held it could not allow the dismissal to stand. It therefore allowed the appeals, set aside both the interim order admitting additional evidence and the final judgment, and remanded the matter to the High Court to decide both the additional-evidence applications and the first appeals afresh, applying the correct legal standard.
When a party seeks to introduce additional evidence during an appeal, courts must follow the settled procedural safeguards for doing so rather than deciding such applications in isolation, skipping this step is treated as a jurisdictional defect serious enough to unravel an otherwise-complete appellate decision.
