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, a charitable trust, had been allotted a plot of land in the Juhu Vile Parle Development Area in Mumbai by Maharashtra's High-Powered Cabinet Sub-Committee for use as a playground, under special land-disposal regulations. Before the trust could complete the allotment formalities, the state authority (MHADA) granted a competing licence over the same plot to another trust, and the original conditional allotment to the appellant was eventually cancelled for failing to submit documents proving its eligibility. The Bombay High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging the cancellation, and the trust appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed that the High Court had erred procedurally by relying on additional grounds raised later in a counter-affidavit that were not part of the original cancellation order (which had been based solely on non-submission of documents). However, the Court declined to grant relief regardless, because by the time of the appeal, the competing party had already been granted a long-term lease (first for 15 years, later renewed) over the same plot pursuant to separate, unchallenged consent orders in other writ petitions, and had paid over Rs. 1.38 crore towards it. Since the appellant had never specifically challenged that lease in this appeal, the Court held it could not undo the on-ground reality through this proceeding. It dismissed the appeal without costs, while expressly declining to comment on the legality of the lease granted to the competing party.
Winning a procedural point against a government cancellation order is not enough: a party must also directly challenge any intervening third-party rights (like a lease granted to someone else over the same property) that have arisen in the meantime, or the court may decline relief even after finding the original decision flawed.
