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 vessel, "M.V. Eleni," was separately arrested in admiralty suits before both the Madras High Court and the Bombay High Court by different creditors around 1997. The Madras High Court, which had arrested the vessel first, sold it through its Advocate Commissioner and later disbursed the sale proceeds among several creditors and the crew. The appellant, which had obtained a decree and an attachment order from the Bombay High Court, challenged the Madras High Court's disbursement, arguing it should have received priority as a decree-holder and that Madras had no jurisdiction over funds already attached by Bombay.
The Supreme Court held that since the vessel was arrested and sold by the Madras High Court first, in a suit in rem, that court alone had jurisdiction (as the transferee/custodial court) to decide priorities among all claimants, including the appellant, who was fully aware of the Madras proceedings but chose not to participate in them. The Court found the appellant could not bypass the Madras proceedings by separately obtaining an attachment order from the Bombay High Court without notice to the other creditors, and upheld the High Court's view that the appellant should instead pursue its claim under the Madras High Court's own Original Side Rules. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
When property (here, a ship) is under the custody of one court through a suit "in rem," that court alone has jurisdiction to decide competing claims over it: a creditor cannot sidestep that process by seeking a separate attachment order from a different court without notifying the other interested parties.
