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 contractor was awarded a tender by the Yeola Municipal Council to lay an underground sewer system under a centrally sponsored urban infrastructure scheme. After completing about 35% of the work, the contractor was not paid because the Central Government had not released the sanctioned funds, and the scheme itself was discontinued after March 2015. The Bombay High Court dismissed the contractor's writ petition seeking a direction to the Central and State Governments to disburse funds, and the contractor appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that while the State Level Sanctioning Committee and the Ministry of Urban Development had approved the sewer project in principle, the Ministry of Finance's concurrence, necessary for actual release of funds, was never obtained before the scheme's expiry, and no money was ever released for this particular municipal council. Since there was no privity of contract between the contractor and the Central Government, and no sanctioned funds existed, the Court found no illegality in the High Court's order refusing to direct payment. However, recognising that sewage infrastructure is a genuine public necessity, the Court directed the State Government to consider and approve the sewer scheme under its own funding within three months, failing which it should seek funds from the Centre under the successor AMRUT scheme.
A contractor who undertakes government work cannot compel payment from a government body merely because an inter-departmental communication discussed a project: actual sanction and release of funds by the competent authority is what creates an enforceable obligation, and courts will not conjure one from preliminary correspondence alone.
