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 moreUnder the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, Rule 7 was amended in 2023 so that only candidates with at least three years of continuous practice as an advocate, or those who scored 70% or more in the qualifying law degree examination, could apply for the post of Civil Judge (Entry Level). Some candidates who did not meet this criterion challenged their exclusion, and a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, exercising review jurisdiction, revisited its own earlier order in their favour. The High Court itself (through its Registrar General) approached the Supreme Court, aggrieved that the Division Bench had exceeded the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court held that the review petition filed by the candidates did not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record, the essential ground for invoking review jurisdiction, and that the Division Bench ought not to have reopened and altered its earlier decision. The Court noted that the recruitment process, including a separate examination window for physically impaired candidates, had proceeded on a distinct track and could not be used as a ground for review. An affidavit filed by the Registrar also confirmed no ineligible candidate would be called for interview, addressing the underlying apprehension. The Court set aside the High Court's review order, dismissed the review petition, and directed the recruitment process to be concluded promptly.
Review jurisdiction is narrow and can only be invoked for an error apparent on the face of the record. It is not a backdoor to re-argue a case or expand eligibility criteria that were validly framed by rule-making authority.
