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 moreLamba Exports had an Agreement to Sell (2021) for a Gurugram commercial property owned by Dhir Global Industries, and had paid substantial amounts including a deposit toward the seller's proposed One Time Settlement (OTS) with its bank. When the seller tried to back out citing the bank's non-acceptance of the OTS, Lamba Exports sued for specific performance and interim injunction; after losing at the appellate stage and in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, its Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court was also dismissed in February 2025. It then filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking recall of that dismissal, arguing that later events: a fresh OTS the seller struck with its bank, and the Committee of Creditors' subsequent approval to withdraw insolvency proceedings under Section 12A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code: showed suppression of material facts and fraud on the Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the recall application primarily on the ground of maintainability: once an SLP is dismissed by a non-executory, non-speaking order, the Court becomes functus officio (loses jurisdiction) and a post-disposal application can only be entertained in narrow situations like correcting a clerical error or where an executory order has become impossible to implement, neither applied here. The Court also held that subsequent developments in a separate insolvency proceeding cannot retroactively be used to reopen a disposed civil case, and that allegations of "fraud on the court" require more than bare assertions about later, unrelated events. It further reaffirmed settled insolvency law that the Committee of Creditors' commercial wisdom in approving a settlement and withdrawal under Section 12A of the IBC is largely non-justiciable and cannot be second-guessed by comparing it to a rival private offer.
Once the Supreme Court finally dismisses a case, that order generally cannot be reopened through a later miscellaneous application merely because new developments occurred afterward in a separate, unrelated proceeding: litigants must pursue any fresh grievance through the appropriate separate legal remedy rather than trying to reopen a closed matter.
