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 appellant sued the Madhya Pradesh state government in 2012 claiming title and possession over a parcel of land he said had been allotted to him in 1977, which the State instead treated as government land reserved for the Youth Welfare Department and the Collectorate. His suit was dismissed by the trial court but allowed on first appeal, which declared him the landlord. The State's attempt to challenge that appellate decision was badly delayed: a review petition filed over two years late (later dismissed for delay) followed by a second appeal filed roughly a year after that, adding up to a total delay of 1,537 days, but the High Court still condoned the delay and sent the second appeal to be heard on merits, prompting the appellant's challenge before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court acknowledged the general principle that delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause and that the State is not entitled to a more lenient standard merely because it is the State. However, it held that where a dispute involves land the State claims as government property already in its possession and dedicated to public use, and where the merits genuinely warrant examination, courts should lean toward deciding cases on merits rather than shutting them out on a technical limitation bar. Noting that the appellant himself had never actually taken possession of the land (having filed an execution case to obtain possession), the Court found the second appeal deserved to be heard on merits. It upheld the High Court's condonation of delay but imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 payable by the State to the appellant as a condition, cautioning the State to act with more promptitude in future.
Courts generally prefer deciding disputes on their actual merits over dismissing them on technical limitation grounds, even when the delay is lengthy, but that liberality is not free: a party (including the government) that delays without adequate diligence can still be made to pay costs to the other side as the price of getting a merits hearing.
