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-landlord had obtained a 2007 consent decree against the appellant-tenants in an eviction suit, requiring them to vacate by January 2009 or pay daily mesne profits. When the tenants failed to vacate, the landlord sought execution of the decree. The Executing Court rejected the tenants' objections and ordered a possession warrant, but the Small Causes Court (in revision) set that aside and sent the matter back to the Executing Court, partly to let the tenants file additional documents. The landlord then successfully challenged that order before the Bombay High Court, which restored the Executing Court's order, bringing the tenants to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found that the Revisionary Court had erred twice: it should have decided the revision on merits itself instead of remanding it back to the Executing Court, and it should not have allowed new documents to be introduced for the first time at the revision stage. It also held that the High Court, having spotted these errors, should have sent the case back to the Revisionary Court rather than deciding the merits itself. The Court therefore set aside both the High Court's order and the Revisionary Court's order, and remanded the matter to the Revisionary Court to decide the tenants' revision afresh on its merits within six months, without being influenced by any of the earlier observations.
Appellate and revisional courts must decide the specific question properly before them rather than repeatedly shuttling a case back down the judicial ladder, and a party generally cannot introduce new evidence for the first time at the revision stage of execution proceedings.
