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 appellant, who appeared in person, was aggrieved that the High Court had passed an order under Section 362 Cr.P.C. recalling its own earlier order, on the basis that the earlier order was "patently erroneous." The underlying dispute traced back to a notice issued by a Sessions Court in a pending criminal appeal before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
The Supreme Court held that Section 362 Cr.P.C. exists only to correct clerical or arithmetical errors, not to allow a court to re-hear and reverse its own order on the merits merely because it later considers that order erroneous: any such substantive correction must follow the process known to law (e.g., review or appeal), not a Section 362 recall. Since what the High Court did was effectively a merits re-hearing dressed up as a correction, that recall order was impermissible and was set aside. The Court also set aside the original High Court order itself, but, since the related criminal appeal was still pending before the Sessions Court, declined to go into the merits, instead disposing of the appeal with a direction to the Sessions Court to dispose of that pending appeal expeditiously.
Section 362 Cr.P.C. cannot be used by a court to re-open and reverse its own decision on the merits; a party aggrieved by an allegedly erroneous order must pursue the proper legal remedy (such as review or appeal), not ask the same court to simply recall its order.
