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 moreIn a long-running money-recovery dispute between Khoday Distilleries and a sugar cooperative, the Karnataka High Court had decreed the suit in the cooperative's favour, and the Supreme Court dismissed Khoday's special leave petition against that decree without giving reasons. Khoday then went back to the High Court seeking a review of its original judgment, but the High Court refused even to consider the review, holding that once the Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP, it no longer had power to review its own judgment. This raised a recurring legal question on which different two-judge benches of the Supreme Court had taken conflicting views, so it was referred to a larger bench.
The three-judge bench held that there was no real conflict between the two earlier three-judge precedents (Abbai Maligai and Kunhayammed) once properly read, and reaffirmed the settled law from Kunhayammed: a non-speaking (reasons-less) dismissal of a Special Leave Petition does not "merge" the High Court's judgment into the Supreme Court's order, and therefore does not by itself bar the High Court from later entertaining a review petition against its own judgment. Applying this, since Khoday's SLP had been dismissed in limine without reasons, its review petition before the High Court was legally maintainable and should have been decided on its merits: the Court set aside the High Court's refusal and remanded that review petition for a decision on merits, while in the connected appeal it found the High Court had correctly entertained a review on grounds of fraud and left that appeal to be heard separately on its own merits.
If the Supreme Court dismisses your special leave petition without giving any reasons, that dismissal does not automatically close the door on a review petition in the High Court against its own judgment: the specific wording and nature of the Supreme Court's order determines whether review remains open.
