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 moreIn a 2004 suit before the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jodhpur, the respondent had applied under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Civil Procedure Code to have the suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage thrown out at the threshold as barred by limitation. The High Court of Rajasthan upheld this rejection, relying on two earlier Supreme Court decisions (Sampuran Singh and Prabhakaran) on when the limitation period for redeeming such a mortgage begins to run.
The Supreme Court noted that the legal position relied on by the High Court had since been overruled by a later three-judge/larger bench decision, Singh Ram vs Sheo Ram (2014), which held that the limitation period for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage runs from the date the mortgage money is actually paid or otherwise satisfied, not from the point the High Court had applied. Applying this corrected position, the Court held the suit could not have been rejected as time-barred, set aside the High Court's orders, and remitted the matter to the Trial Court for a full trial on all issues raised in the suit. Given the suit's age (filed in 2004), the Court requested the Trial Court to dispose of it within six months of the parties' next appearance, fixed for 4 April 2016. The appeals were allowed accordingly, with no order as to costs.
The law on when a limitation period starts can change through later Supreme Court rulings, and a suit wrongly thrown out under an outdated limitation rule can be revived, so a procedural dismissal for being "time-barred" is not always the last word if the underlying legal position shifts.
