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 petitioner had earlier challenged, before the Supreme Court, certain adverse observations made by a Division Bench of the Uttarakhand High Court while dismissing its intra-court appeal (itself filed against a Single Judge's order). Rather than arguing that appeal on merits, the petitioner's counsel sought and obtained the Supreme Court's permission (order dated 4 January 2023) to withdraw the intra-court appeal, so as to restore the position under the Single Judge's original order. The petitioner subsequently filed this contempt petition before the Supreme Court alleging wilful disobedience of that 4 January 2023 order.
The Supreme Court explained that once it permitted withdrawal of the intra-court appeal, the Division Bench's order (and all orders passed in that appeal) stood undone by legal fiction, relegating the parties to the position they were in when the intra-court appeal was filed, meaning the Single Judge's original order was restored and effectively operated from the date of the Supreme Court's order as though never challenged. Since the order allegedly violated was, in substance, the Single Judge's order (not directly an order of the Supreme Court), the Court held that any contempt for its violation would lie before the High Court, not the Supreme Court. It therefore disposed of the contempt petition, granting the petitioner liberty to initiate contempt proceedings before the High Court if the Single Judge's order was indeed being violated, while expressing no opinion on the merits of that allegation.
When the Supreme Court merely permits withdrawal of a lower court proceeding (restoring an earlier order rather than passing a fresh substantive direction of its own), any subsequent violation of that restored order must ordinarily be pursued as contempt before the court that originally passed it, not before the Supreme Court.
