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 plaintiff (appellant here) had obtained an ex-parte decree in 2016 for specific performance of a sale agreement after the original defendants failed to contest the suit or file a written statement. Long after the defendant died and his legal representatives had already appeared in execution proceedings in 2018, the legal representatives applied in January 2020 (after a delay of 1,312 days) to set aside the ex-parte decree, blaming their lawyer for misplacing case files. The trial court refused to condone the delay, but the Madras High Court reversed that refusal, condoned the delay, and set aside the decree on payment of costs.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in condoning such an extraordinary delay, noting there was no genuine ailment preventing the original defendant from contesting the suit during his lifetime, and that his legal representatives were clearly aware of the decree once they appeared in the 2018 execution proceedings yet took over a year to act. It found the explanation that the lawyer had misplaced the files to be a vague, undated, and ultimately false excuse, unsupported by evidence, and held that equitable relief for condonation of delay cannot be extended where the delay is deliberate and unexplained rather than a genuine, non-deliberate lapse. Accordingly, it set aside the High Court's order and restored the trial court's decision refusing to condone the delay, thereby reviving the original ex-parte decree in the plaintiff's favour.
Courts will only excuse long delays in challenging a decree when the delay is genuinely non-deliberate and properly explained with evidence; vague claims about a lawyer misplacing files, especially after a party has already appeared and had notice of the decree in earlier proceedings, will not succeed and the law favours parties who act diligently, not those who delay.
