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 moreThese appeals arose from a Full Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court that had resolved a conflict between its own earlier benches on a recurring question under the SARFAESI Act: can a borrower whose secured assets are being enforced by a bank approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under Section 17 only after the bank takes "actual/physical" possession, or also at the earlier stage of "symbolic" possession (where a possession notice is simply affixed and published)? The Full Bench had ruled that a borrower must wait until actual physical possession is taken before it can go to the DRT, which the appellant companies argued would leave them powerless to challenge an unlawful seizure of a running business until it was too late.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the Full Bench and held that Rule 8 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 contemplates two distinct stages of possession, "constructive/symbolic" possession under Rule 8(1)-(2) and "actual/physical" possession under Rule 8(3), both of which qualify as "measures" taken under Section 13(4) of the Act. Relying on statutory language, a 2018 amendment to Rule 8 introducing Appendix IV-A (which expressly refers to "constructive/physical" possession), and prior precedent recognising symbolic possession as a valid legal device, the Court held that a borrower can approach the DRT under Section 17 as soon as the possession notice under Rule 8(1)/(2) is issued, without waiting for physical dispossession. It set aside the Full Bench's judgment as erroneous, allowed the appeals, and sent the individual cases back to the relevant courts/tribunals to be decided on their own facts applying this clarified legal position.
A borrower does not have to wait until a bank physically seizes mortgaged property to challenge the bank's enforcement action, even the initial step of taking "symbolic" possession (affixing and publishing a possession notice) is enough to trigger the right to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal under the SARFAESI Act.
