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 family partition suit over a Delhi property, the plaintiff later discovered that he also had an undivided share in a second, already-sold family property (at Nizamuddin) that had been left out of the original plaint, reportedly due to his earlier lawyer's oversight. He applied to amend the plaint to claim his share of that property's sale proceeds, but by the time he applied, evidence recording in the suit had technically begun. The trial court and the Delhi High Court both rejected the amendment, holding it was time-barred and came after commencement of trial.
The Supreme Court held that although evidence-recording had technically started, the amendment application was actually filed before either side led evidence, and both sides' evidence was in fact led after the amendment request, so no real prejudice was caused to the defendants by allowing it late. The Court also found that the lower courts had prematurely decided the amendment was time-barred without first examining whether the twelve-year limitation period for enforcing a joint-family-property share (Article 110, Limitation Act) applied, rather than the shorter three-year period for simple recovery of money. The Court allowed the amendment, while giving both sides a limited opportunity to lead additional evidence on the newly added claim, and left the limitation question itself open for the trial court to decide on merits.
Courts are expected to take a liberal approach to pleading amendments where no real prejudice is shown to the other side: procedural technicalities about "when trial commenced" should not override the goal of resolving the real dispute between the parties on its merits.
