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 moreSatwanti Devi, the owner of a Delhi property, executed a will in 1991 in favour of her nephew Som Prakash, which she allegedly later revoked, executing a second will in 1996 in favour of her tenant Jai Ram. After her death, Som Prakash obtained a court order (Letters of Administration) in 1999 based on the first will and later sold the property. Years later, in 2016, Jai Ram applied to revoke that 1999 grant, and the District Court agreed with him in 2017. Som Prakash appealed, and the High Court set aside that order in 2022, holding, for the first time on appeal, that Jai Ram's application had been filed too late (barred by limitation).
The Supreme Court found that neither Som Prakash nor anyone else had raised an objection about limitation before the District Court when Jai Ram's revocation application was being heard: no such plea was made, and no evidence on the point was presented at that stage. The High Court, therefore, was wrong to overturn the District Court's order purely on a limitation ground that was never argued or evidenced below, especially since limitation is a mixed question of law and fact requiring proper pleading and proof. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and sent the case back to the High Court to decide the appeals on their actual merits, without revisiting the limitation issue.
A party generally cannot raise a fact-dependent legal defence like limitation for the first time on appeal if it was never pleaded or supported by evidence at the trial stage. Courts are expected to decide cases on the arguments and evidence actually presented in the court of first instance.
