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 moreA landlord first sued his tenant for a permanent injunction to stop unauthorized construction and subletting on rented premises, which was partly decreed. He later filed a separate eviction suit on the ground that the tenant had built permanent structures without consent: one of the specific grounds for eviction under the 1947 Rent Act. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the eviction suit, holding it was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code (which stops a plaintiff from splitting one cause of action into multiple suits), and the Gujarat High Court upheld this in revision without examining the actual merits of the eviction claim.
The Supreme Court held that an Order 2 Rule 2 bar can only be sustained if the defendant actually proves the plaint of the earlier suit as evidence to establish that both suits share an identical cause of action, relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Gurbux Singh vs. Bhooralal, and since the tenant here had never formally proved the earlier injunction suit's plaint, the bar could not be upheld. The Court therefore could not sustain the High Court's conclusion that the eviction suit was barred, but noted the lower courts had never actually examined whether the tenant had, in fact, built unauthorized permanent structures. As for the connected appeal concerning the earlier injunction suit (Civil Revision No. 172 of 2006), the Court found no justification to interfere and dismissed that appeal outright. For the eviction matter (Civil Revision No. 173 of 2006), the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remitted the case to the High Court to decide the real merits, whether the landlord had actually established grounds for eviction under Section 13(b) of the 1947 Act, within six months.
A technical procedural bar like Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, which stops a plaintiff from splitting a single cause of action into separate lawsuits, cannot simply be assumed from the pleadings of the new case: the party raising it must formally prove the earlier suit's plaint in evidence; courts cannot infer or guess the earlier cause of action instead of requiring actual proof.
