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 respondent had taken two loans from the Corporation, one to buy a truck and one to set up a small trunk-manufacturing unit, and defaulted on both. The Corporation first filed a civil suit to recover the truck loan but withdrew it in order to instead pursue the faster statutory recovery-certificate procedure under the 1973 Act, and later issued recovery certificates for both loans. The respondent successfully challenged these recovery proceedings in the High Court, which held that withdrawing the suit (without express liberty to sue again) amounted to abandoning the claim as a matter of "public policy," and separately held that the recovery of the industry loan was time-barred.
The Supreme Court held the High Court's reasoning was wrong on both counts. Withdrawal of a civil suit under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC only bars filing a fresh suit: it does not bar pursuing an independent statutory remedy such as certificate proceedings under a special recovery law, because a suit and a recovery certificate are different kinds of proceedings governed by different procedures. The Court also found that the High Court had overlooked that a recovery certificate for the industry loan had already been issued back in 1994, so that claim was not time-barred either. "Public policy," the Court held, could not be invoked to let a borrower escape repayment of a loan funded by public/taxpayer money. The High Court's order was set aside and the auction proceedings under the Act were directed to proceed and conclude expeditiously.
Withdrawing a civil suit to instead pursue a faster, legally available alternative remedy (such as a statutory recovery mechanism) is not automatically treated as "abandoning" the underlying claim: the two routes are legally distinct, and a public lender recovering public money is not barred from switching between them.
