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 appellant, a promoter of a mushroom-farming company, had taken financial assistance from the Haryana Financial Corporation, which later invested in his company's shares under a "Buy-Back Agreement." When the Corporation sought to recover dues as arrears of land revenue under the Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979, the appellant filed a civil suit asking the court to declare the agreement void and the recovery notice illegal. The trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court all held that the civil suit itself was not permitted because the special Act barred civil courts from hearing such recovery-related disputes.
The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts. Section 3(4) of the 1979 Act expressly removes civil courts' jurisdiction over any case relating to recovery of dues from a "defaulter," and the plaint itself showed the appellant fell within that definition and that his claims directly challenged a recovery under the Act. The Court distinguished a precedent relied on by the appellant (the "Unique Butyle" case), noting it concerned a different (UP) statute with different wording and did not address whether a civil suit was barred. The Court clarified it was not examining whether the underlying recovery demand was itself valid, only that the civil court had no power to decide that question at all. The appeal was dismissed.
When a special law expressly takes away civil courts' jurisdiction over a particular category of dispute (here, recovery of dues by a financial corporation), a person affected cannot sidestep that bar by filing an ordinary civil suit: they must use whatever remedy the special statute itself provides.
