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 moreSuryachakra Power Corporation's appeal to the Supreme Court under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 against an order of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity was filed 161 days late. The Court had earlier (03.08.2015) condoned this delay and admitted the appeal, but on fuller consideration it realized that order had been passed without noticing that Section 125 caps the total condonable delay for such appeals at 120 days (60 days ordinary limitation + a maximum 60-day extension), beyond which even the general Limitation Act cannot be invoked to rescue a late appeal.
The Court held that Section 125 of the Electricity Act is a special, self-contained limitation scheme that excludes the general power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay beyond the prescribed 120 days, relying on its own earlier ruling in Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission. It then examined whether Section 14 of the Limitation Act (exclusion of time spent bona fide prosecuting another proceeding, like the appellant's review petition before the Tribunal) could save the appeal, and found that the appellant had not acted with the required "due diligence and good faith": it took 37 days beyond the Tribunal's own limitation to file the review petition, and even after withdrawing that review petition specifically to file this appeal, it still let several available days lapse before actually filing. Finding no legal basis to rescue the delay, the Court recalled its own earlier order dated 03.08.2015 that had condoned the 161-day delay, dismissed the condonation application, and consequently dismissed the appeal itself as time-barred.
Certain special laws (like the Electricity Act) set a hard, non-extendable outer limit on how late an appeal can be filed, once that cap is crossed, neither the general Limitation Act's discretionary condonation power nor claims of "due diligence" in a related proceeding can revive the appeal, so litigants under such statutes must treat the deadline as absolute, not negotiable.
