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 appellant had been granted "Ambalam" (a hereditary temple honour/right) by the Joint Commissioner of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Board. A rival claimant, who wanted to appeal against that order, filed his appeal 266 days late, citing prolonged illness. The Commissioner condoned this delay by applying Section 5 of the Limitation Act, and the High Court upheld that decision. The appellant challenged this in the Supreme Court, arguing that the Commissioner, not being a "Court", had no power to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act at all.
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed review of decades of its own precedent and held that the Commissioner, while hearing an appeal under Section 69 of the Tamil Nadu HR&CE Act, 1959, is not a "Court," and that the Limitation Act's provisions (including Section 5, which allows condonation of delay) apply only to proceedings before actual courts, not before statutory tribunals or administrative authorities, unless a special law expressly extends it to them. Since the 1959 Act only expressly imported the Limitation Act's "computation of time" provisions (not Section 5 itself), the Commissioner had no power to condone the 266-day delay. The Court therefore set aside the High Court's judgment and the Commissioner's order condoning delay, and dismissed the rival claimant's original appeal, while clarifying the Commissioner could still use a separate "suo motu" power under the Act if he chose to.
Not every government or quasi-judicial authority that hears appeals is automatically treated as a "Court", whether delay in filing an appeal can be excused depends on the specific law creating that authority, and general excuses like illness will not help if the law simply does not permit condonation of delay before that forum.
