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 moreRaj Kumar owned a rented shop and, by a registered will, left all his property to his nephews Kuldeep Kumar and Pradeep Kumar. After Raj Kumar's death, his brother Shiv Kumar filed an eviction suit against the tenant in his own capacity as an heir; when Shiv Kumar died during the suit, his sons (the real owners under the will) and widow were substituted as plaintiffs, but continued to be described in the case papers only as "heirs" rather than as owners in their own right. The trial court decreed eviction in the plaintiffs' favour, but the District Judge, in revision, set the decree aside on the ground that only the true owners (and not Shiv Kumar, or his estate generally) ever had the right to sue, and the High Court upheld that reversal.
The Supreme Court held that it was undisputed that the appellants were the true owners of the property, had been validly substituted as plaintiffs, and could certainly maintain the eviction suit, so the only real defect was a formal, technical one in how they were described (as "heirs" rather than "owners") in the pleadings. Relying on Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which bars reversing a decree for a mere error, defect, or irregularity that does not affect the merits or jurisdiction and causes no prejudice (especially when no objection was raised at trial), the Court held the District Judge and High Court were wrong to have reversed the decree on this technicality alone. It therefore allowed the appeal, set aside both the District Judge's revisional order and the High Court's order, and restored the original trial court decree of eviction.
A lawsuit should not be thrown out merely because of a technical mislabeling of a party's capacity (e.g., calling the real owner an "heir") when the correct party is actually before the court and no one has been prejudiced: Indian civil procedure (Section 99 CPC) protects substance over form in such situations.
