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 landlord filed a Small Causes Suit for eviction, rent and damages against his tenant before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Firozabad, which was later transferred to and decided by the Additional District Judge, who decreed eviction in the landlord's favour. The tenant challenged this decree in a revision before the Allahabad High Court, arguing that after a 2015 Uttar Pradesh amendment raised the pecuniary jurisdiction threshold for Small Cause Courts, the Additional District Judge no longer had jurisdiction to decide the suit. The High Court agreed and set aside the eviction decree purely on this jurisdictional ground, prompting the landlord's heirs to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that even though the Additional District Judge may indeed not have had pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the suit after the 2015 amendment, Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure bars a revisional or appellate court from setting aside a decree on a jurisdictional objection (as to place of suing/pecuniary jurisdiction) unless the objection was raised at the earliest opportunity in the trial court and the party shows it caused a failure of justice. Applying its own precedent in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan and R.S.D.V. Finance Company v. Shree Vallabh Glass Works, the Court held that a conflicting High Court single-judge ruling (Tejumal v. Mohd. Sarfraz) did not state the correct law and could not be approved. Since the tenant had not raised the jurisdictional objection at the earliest stage and no prejudice/failure of justice was shown, the High Court erred in interfering with the Additional District Judge's decree purely on the jurisdiction point; the Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the eviction decree, with parties bearing their own costs.
A technical objection that a particular court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction cannot be used to overturn a decree on appeal/revision unless it was raised at the very first opportunity in the trial court and actually caused real prejudice: litigants should raise jurisdictional objections immediately, not save them for a later appeal.
