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 petitioners were serving as Presiding Officers of Debts Recovery Tribunals under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (later renamed the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act). A 2016 amendment to Section 6 of the Act changed the term of office/retirement-age provisions for Presiding Officers, and a dispute arose over whether this amended, more favourable provision applied to officers who were already serving in the post on the date the amendment took effect, or only to those appointed afterward. The writ petition and several transferred cases from different High Courts raised this common question.
The Supreme Court held that Parliament intended the benefit of the amended Section 6 to extend even to Presiding Officers already in service when the amendment came into force, reasoning that this was the "just, reasonable and sensible" reading consistent with the statute's purpose of reducing case backlogs in the tribunals. It distinguished a precedent relied on by the Union of India (concerning a differently-worded, purely prospective amendment) as inapplicable, and drew support from the contrast between amended Section 6 and the newly inserted Section 6A, which did expressly distinguish incumbent officers from future appointees. Accordingly, it allowed the writ petition and the transferred cases, directing that the lead petitioner be reinstated immediately with continuity of service and back salary for the intervening period, and that other petitioners already under interim protection be allowed to continue.
When a statute is amended to make it more beneficial for government/tribunal officeholders, courts will look at the amendment's underlying purpose and the statute's overall scheme to decide whether it was meant to apply to people already in service, rather than assuming it only applies going forward.
