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 appellants' predecessor, a landlord in Munger, Bihar, had won an eviction order against his tenant, but one Vijay Kumar then claimed he had purchased the property under a 1983 agreement to sell and obtained an ex-parte specific-performance decree in 1987 when the landlord did not appear. The landlord's attempt to get that ex-parte decree set aside under Order IX Rule 13 failed before the trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court, each holding he had been validly served and had delayed too long after learning of the decree. The Supreme Court noted the case had a "chequered" and suspicious history worth examining closely.
The Court found it telling that this Vijay Kumar had never personally appeared in any court proceeding despite repeated directions to do so, and that a court-appointed advocate-commissioner who twice visited the property found only the original tenant's daughter in possession, with no trace of Vijay Kumar, who claimed to have been in possession since 1989. The Court concluded that Vijay Kumar appeared to be "a doubtful entity," possibly set up by the tenant to defeat the landlord's long-pending eviction decree. Although it could not fault the lower courts' reasoning on the technical grounds of service and delay, the Supreme Court exercised its power to do "complete justice," set aside all three lower orders and the 1987 ex-parte decree, and directed that the original 1986 suit be heard afresh on its merits within one year, with status quo on possession maintained until then.
Even where the technical/procedural grounds for condoning a litigant's delay are weak, the Supreme Court can look beyond rigid procedural compliance and set aside a decree obtained through what appears to be a fabricated or doubtful party's claim, especially where there is a long, suspicious pattern of non-appearance and shifting possession.
