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 moreSatish Chandra had sued Om Prakash Gupta for specific performance of a 1970 agreement to sell; he won in first appeal, and Om Prakash filed a second appeal before the Allahabad High Court, which stayed the decree in 1977. Satish Chandra died in 1996 during the pendency of that second appeal, and his heirs applied for substitution, but the High Court later dismissed the second appeal as abated, treating it as if no valid substitution application had been made, without deciding the substitution application on merits. A connected appeal involved a similarly abated second appeal concerning Satish Chandra's late wife, Rooprani.
The Supreme Court held that the heirs' 1997 application, though technically titled a "substitution" application, effectively also asked the Court to delete the deceased respondent and bring the heirs on record, which the Court held necessarily implies a prayer to set aside the abatement, relying on its earlier ruling in Mithailal that such a prayer can be read into a substitution application even if abatement-setting-aside is not explicitly requested. Since the appellants had never been guilty of inaction, the delay lay in the High Court's own registry and process, the Court set aside the abatement in both connected appeals, restored the second appeals to their original numbers, and directed that the heirs be formally brought on record. Given the decades-long delay and the fact all original parties are now dead, the Court asked the High Court to prioritize and decide the restored appeals within six months.
When a party to a pending appeal dies, an application asking the court to substitute the deceased's heirs, even if it does not use the words "set aside abatement", can be read as also seeking to undo an abatement, so litigants are not automatically shut out merely because they used imprecise language in what they filed on time.
