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 had not been made parties to certain original writ petitions before a Single Judge of the Gujarat High Court, but were aggrieved by the order passed in those petitions. When they filed intra-court (Letters Patent) appeals before the Division Bench, those appeals were filed 233 days late. The Division Bench dismissed their applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, finding no sufficient cause, and consequently dismissed the appeals themselves without looking at the merits.
The Supreme Court heard the parties and examined the record, and held that the Division Bench ought to have condoned the delay, given that the appellants were not originally parties to the writ petitions and only became aggrieved after the Single Judge's order was passed: this, in the Court's view, amounted to sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order declining condonation, restored the intra-court appeals to the Division Bench's file, and directed the Division Bench to now decide those appeals finally on merits, with liberty to the parties to seek interim orders in the meantime. The Supreme Court was careful to clarify that it expressed no opinion whatsoever on the merits of the underlying controversy: its decision was confined strictly to the condonation-of-delay question, which it fully and finally resolved in the appellants' favour.
A delay in filing an appeal can be excused for "sufficient cause" where the delay arose from the appellant genuinely not being a party to the original proceeding and only becoming aggrieved once the adverse order was passed: courts should look at the real reason for delay rather than mechanically counting days.
