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 moreRespondent no.1's license to run a fair price shop in a Gram Panchayat in Sitapur (UP) was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and his departmental appeals to the Commissioner were dismissed without a reasoned order. He then filed a writ petition, and the Kerala-style single judge of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow bench) allowed the petition, set aside both the SDM's and the Commissioner's orders, and restored his position, without itself deciding the merits of who was entitled to run the shop. The appellant (who benefited from the original cancellation) challenged this before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that once the High Court found the Commissioner's order legally unsustainable for being unreasoned, it had only two proper options, decide the dispute on merits itself, or remand it to the Commissioner for a fresh, reasoned decision, and the High Court had wrongly done neither, leaving the actual merits of the licensing dispute undecided by anyone. The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeal in part and itself chose the remand route: it restored the Commissioner's appeals to the register for fresh, merits-based disposal, directed both parties to appear before the Commissioner on a fixed date, and ordered the proceedings to be completed within three months, uninfluenced by any of the earlier observations of the High Court or the Supreme Court itself.
When a court or tribunal's order is set aside for lacking reasons, the reviewing court must either decide the dispute itself or clearly remand it for a fresh, reasoned decision: it cannot simply strike down the order and leave the parties' actual dispute hanging in limbo.
