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's first marriage was dissolved by a trial court decree in 2009, which he appealed; the appeal's operation was stayed by the High Court. While the appeal was pending, the appellant and his ex-wife settled the matter through mediation, and he applied to withdraw the appeal. Before the court formally recorded the withdrawal, the appellant remarried the respondent. The respondent later sought to have this second marriage declared void on the ground that the appellant's first marriage had not been legally dissolved at the time, since the appeal was still technically pending. The Family Court rejected this, but the High Court reversed and declared the second marriage null and void.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a party may remarry only after an appeal against the divorce decree is dismissed, and this exists to protect a genuinely contesting appellant. However, applying Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC (which gives a litigant an unconditional right to withdraw), the Court held that an appeal is deemed withdrawn from the date the withdrawal application is filed, not from the date of the court's formal order recording it. Since the appellant had filed his withdrawal application before his second marriage, he was no longer "contesting" the divorce and his first wife was not a "living spouse" within the meaning of Section 5(i) for that purpose. The Court distinguished its earlier ruling in Lila Gupta, holding that a purposive reading of Section 15 means its restriction does not apply once parties have settled and abandoned the appeal.
When a person has unconditionally withdrawn (or filed to withdraw) an appeal against their divorce decree, the divorce is treated as final from that filing date for the purpose of permitting remarriage: one does not need to wait for the court's formal order dismissing the appeal.
