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 moreThe Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) had acquired land in Dattagalli village for a development scheme in the early 1990s, but a Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court quashed the entire acquisition in 2003 for delay in taking possession. When MUDA appealed to the High Court's Division Bench, the landowners (respondents) applied to have MUDA's appeals dismissed as "infructuous," citing a MUDA board resolution allegedly deciding to drop the land from acquisition. The Division Bench accepted this and dismissed MUDA's appeals "as not pressed/withdrawn," without deciding the merits, which MUDA then challenged before the Supreme Court, saying it never actually withdrew the appeals.
The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench was wrong to treat MUDA's appeals as withdrawn. Examining the actual board resolution and subsequent government/commissioner letters, the Court found no clear or express decision by MUDA to abandon the acquisition or withdraw its appeals: a right of appeal is a valuable right that can only be given up through express authority and free will, not inferred from ambiguous documents, especially when the respondents (not the appellant) were the ones pushing for dismissal. The Court set aside the Division Bench's order, restored the writ appeals to their original numbers, and directed the High Court to decide them on their actual merits, expressly clarifying it had not examined the underlying merits of the land acquisition dispute itself and that the High Court should not be influenced by any of its observations or by anything the parties did after the dismissal order.
A party's right to have its appeal heard and decided on merits cannot be taken away based on an ambiguous or inferred "intention to withdraw": any waiver of that right must be clear, express, and freely made, and courts should not dismiss appeals as "not pressed" without a genuine basis for doing so.
