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 moreLIC had allegedly agreed in 1979 to sell a property to the original plaintiff, who sued for specific performance in 1986 after LIC said it had rescinded the agreement. In 2014, 27 years after the suit was filed, a company claiming to be an assignee of the original plaintiff's rights (via a 1987 assignment) applied to be added as a co-plaintiff and to amend the suit accordingly. The trial judge and, on appeal, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed this, holding that no prejudice would be caused to LIC and that LIC could still contest the assignment later, at trial. LIC challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing that allowing a new party into a 27-year-old suit, without any explanation for the enormous delay, unfairly stripped it of defences it would otherwise have had.
The Supreme Court first held that the order impleading the new party was a "judgment" open to appeal (not a mere unappealable interlocutory order), because it decided a question that vitally affected LIC's rights of defence. On the merits, the Court held that while Order XXII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code does allow a court to let an assignee continue a suit, that discretion must be exercised judicially, considering factors like unreasonable delay and the conduct of the applicant, citing its own precedent (Vidur Impex) that impleadment should be sought within a reasonable time and can be refused where the application is unduly delayed. Finding a 27-year, completely unexplained delay in a case between sophisticated commercial parties (not "rustic litigants"), the Court held the High Court was wrong to allow the amendment, as it caused serious prejudice to LIC's accrued rights of defence. The impugned judgment was set aside and the application to implead the assignee was dismissed.
Even in matters where courts are generally liberal about allowing amendments or new parties to join a case, an unreasonably long and unexplained delay, especially between businesses, as opposed to ordinary individuals, can by itself be a valid reason for a court to refuse the request, because the other side's right to defend the case fairly must also be protected.
