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 moreA gift deed executed in 1963 over ancestral agricultural land in Punjab was challenged by a coparcener as void. During the suit, the parties reached a compromise, and a compromise decree was eventually drawn up years after the compromise judgment. A later round of litigation turned on whether the original suit (and a subsequent suit to enforce rights under the decree) was filed within the limitation period, given the gap between the 1963 compromise judgment and the 1972 formal decree. The Trial Court and the first Appellate Court held the suit was within time, but the High Court reversed this, holding limitation ran from the date of the judgment, not the later decree.
The Supreme Court held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (which excludes time spent pursuing a remedy in a wrong forum/with a technical defect) applied here, because the Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920 does not expressly exclude it, and Section 29(2) of the 1963 Act preserves its application to special/local limitation laws unless expressly excluded. On that basis, the Court found the Trial Court and First Appellate Court were correct that the suit was within limitation, and that the High Court had erred in treating the decree as relating back to the earlier judgment date for limitation purposes. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the decisions of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court.
When a special or local limitation law (like a state-specific Act) does not expressly exclude the general exclusion/extension provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 (such as Section 14), those general provisions continue to apply: litigants are not automatically barred merely because a formal decree was drawn up years after the underlying compromise judgment.
