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 group of home-buyers had filed consumer complaints against the builder before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) seeking refunds for delayed flat delivery. The builder's written statement (reply) was filed four days beyond the 45-day outer limit permitted under Section 38(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and the NCDRC refused to take it on record, relying on a Supreme Court Constitution Bench ruling that this 45-day limit cannot be extended.
The Supreme Court noted that the delay fell within the period covered by its own suo motu COVID-19 order of 23 March 2020, which extended all limitation periods nationwide from 15 March 2020 "until further orders," regardless of the limitation period's source. Since the 45-day deadline expired while that blanket extension was in force, the four-day delay in filing the written statement was treated as covered by the extension and condoned. The Court set aside the NCDRC's order, directed that the written statement be taken on record, and sent the matter back for expeditious disposal.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court's blanket limitation-extension order applied to virtually all statutory deadlines across the country, including consumer-law filing limits that courts had earlier said could never be extended: a useful precedent for anyone whose pandemic-era filing was rejected as "late."
