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 respondent electricity distribution company sued the appellant mill owner to recover an outstanding electricity bill of about Rs. 63.4 lakh. The appellant did not appear in the suit, and an ex-parte decree was passed against it in 2007. The appellant's application to set aside that decree was filed over twenty months late, and both the trial court and the Gujarat High Court rejected it for being unexplained and too delayed.
While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court had earlier directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 70 lakh with the respondent without prejudice to its contentions, which the appellant did. Treating this deposit as proof of bona fide intent, the Court, without going into the merits of the delay or the underlying dispute, set aside the 2007 ex-parte decree and allowed the appeal, so the appellant could finally be heard. It directed the trial court to restore the original 2006 suit to its file and decide it as expeditiously as possible, given its age, with the appellant to file its written submissions within four weeks; the earlier deposit would remain subject to the suit's final outcome. No costs were awarded.
Even where a litigant is very late in seeking to reopen an ex-parte decree, courts may still give them a chance to be heard on the merits if they show genuine bona fides (such as depositing a substantial disputed sum), but this doesn't decide who ultimately wins; it only reopens the case for a proper hearing.
