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 moreTwo civil appeals raised a common question of law: whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (which allows condonation of delay for sufficient cause) can be used to excuse a late appeal filed beyond the 30-day limit under Section 30(1) of the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, against an order of a Recovery Officer. In both cases, appeals against Recovery Officer orders had been filed late, and it had been held below that Section 5 of the Limitation Act did not apply to such proceedings, so the delay could not be condoned.
The Supreme Court held that the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act is a complete, special code for expeditious debt recovery, under which the Recovery Tribunal is not a "court" for Limitation Act purposes, and the right to condone delay has been expressly and selectively granted elsewhere in the Act (e.g., a 45-day appeal to the Appellate Tribunal under Section 20(3)) but deliberately not for the 30-day appeal against a Recovery Officer's order under Section 30(1). Comparing the pre- and post-2000 versions of Section 30, the Court found that the 2000 amendment removed the earlier deeming fiction that treated Recovery Officer orders as orders of the Tribunal itself, reinforcing that Parliament intended to exclude any extension of this particular 30-day period. It also distinguished and limited an earlier two-judge decision that had held otherwise, noting that decision had not considered the full statutory scheme. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as lacking merit.
Not every "appeal" or "application" deadline under a special law automatically gets the benefit of the general Limitation Act's delay-condonation power: if a specialised statute like the debt-recovery law deliberately grants that flexibility for some deadlines but not others, courts will respect that specific legislative choice and strictly enforce the stricter deadline.
