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 government order dated 30.06.2016 concerning mining/exploration licenses had been challenged before the Delhi High Court in a writ petition. The High Court disposed of that writ petition and set aside the order purely on the basis of a statement made by the counsel for the Union of India, without deciding the dispute on merits. The appellant, who had not been a party to the writ petition, obtained leave and appealed to the Supreme Court, and it later emerged that the Union of India's counsel had made that statement based on incorrect briefing by the concerned official, prompting the Union to itself seek review and recall.
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had wrongly closed the writ petition on an erroneous concession rather than deciding the real controversy on merits, especially since a separate but related batch of petitions had since been decided on merits by the same High Court. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the writ petition to the High Court's file for fresh disposal strictly on merits, granting parties liberty to amend their pleadings. The Supreme Court expressly clarified it had not examined or expressed any opinion on the underlying merits, so the High Court was free to decide afresh without being influenced by this order.
A court order passed solely on the basis of a lawyer's statement or concession (rather than a reasoned decision on merits) can be set aside and reopened if that statement turns out to have been based on incorrect instructions: litigants are not bound forever by an opponent's erroneous concession.
