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 complained that proceedings before the Tribunal constituted under the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (a state law for speedy resolution of works-contract disputes) were taking up to five years or more to conclude, defeating the law's purpose of speedy dispute resolution. The State's counsel did not dispute that such delays were occurring in some cases. The Supreme Court granted leave in this appeal specifically and only to examine whether a direction was needed to ensure timeliness in disposal of such Tribunal proceedings.
The Court held that, given the legislation's object of providing a speedy dispute-resolution mechanism, the State must monitor timeliness, treating one to two years as a reasonable benchmark for Tribunal proceedings, with revision petitions before the High Court to be disposed of within a further two years. It directed that the Tribunal's Chairman ensure no unreasonable delay occurs, escalate any shortage of Benches to the State Government for prompt action, and that parties may approach the Chief Justice of the High Court if these timelines are not met. While clarifying these timelines are not strictly mandatory, the Court referred to its related judgment in Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of Madhya Pradesh and disposed of the appeal entirely on these directions, which was the only question for which leave had been granted.
Even without striking down a law, the Supreme Court can issue practical, time-bound administrative directions to fix chronic delays in a specialised dispute-resolution forum, giving litigants and authorities a concrete benchmark (here, one to two years) and an escalation path through the High Court's Chief Justice.
