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 1980 civil-works contract dispute between Kohinoor Transporters and the State of Uttar Pradesh went to arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940, resulting in a 1984 award that became a final, binding decree ("Rule of the Court") by 1986, later upheld by the High Court in 2006. During subsequent execution proceedings before the Executing Court at Dehradun, the State deposited part of the decretal amount, but disputes arose over how much was actually due; the Executing Court directed the State to deposit a further sum, treating it as an "admitted" amount. When the State challenged this in a Civil Revision before the High Court, the High Court, without any party having asked for it, directed the appointment of a Chartered Accountant to independently examine the accounts and arrears, and Kohinoor Transporters challenged that interim order before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had acted in manifest excess of its jurisdiction by directing the appointment of a Chartered Accountant, because questions about whether a decree has been discharged or satisfied are matters that Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure specifically commits to the Executing Court, not to a court hearing a civil revision against the Executing Court's orders. The Executing Court, the Court noted, must simply execute the decree as it stands, and all disputes about the amount actually owed should be thrashed out there, not through an ad hoc accounting exercise ordered by a revisional court at the interim stage. The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order appointing the Chartered Accountant, and directed the High Court to dispose of the pending Civil Revision expeditiously (within three months), given that the underlying dispute dated back to a 1980 contract and a 1984 award.
A court exercising revisional jurisdiction over an execution dispute cannot step into the shoes of the Executing Court and order its own fact-finding mechanism (like appointing an accountant): questions of whether a decree has actually been paid or satisfied must be decided by the Executing Court itself under the Code of Civil Procedure, keeping execution proceedings from being derailed by parallel inquiries elsewhere.
