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 moreMHADA, a statutory housing authority, ran a scheme to sell flats in its "Powai Project" in Mumbai, and after several rounds of advertisements still had 327 flats unsold, so it reduced the price and issued a further advertisement. The appellant housing society submitted a written offer to purchase 110 flats, which was forwarded to the Board by its selling agent along with offers from three other cooperative societies and some banks. The Board then held meetings and allotted 500 flats to three particular cooperative societies without considering the appellant's offer at all, and when the appellant challenged this before the Bombay High Court, its writ petition was dismissed.
The Supreme Court held that the appellant's letter dated 03.03.2003 was, in substance, a genuine written offer to purchase flats at a quoted price, and there was no valid legal basis for the Board to have excluded it from consideration alongside the three societies' offers. The Board's stated reason for excluding the appellant's offer was never recorded in its own meeting minutes, was disclosed only belatedly in High Court proceedings (which the Court held was impermissible), and in any event had no real basis. The Court found the Board's resolution allotting the flats only to the three societies was arbitrary and violated Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution, quashed that resolution via a writ of certiorari, and left the Board free to proceed afresh in accordance with law, without needing to examine separate allegations of mala fide conduct by officials.
A public authority allocating a public resource (like government housing) must fairly consider all genuine offers before it and cannot silently exclude one bidder for reasons it never recorded contemporaneously, doing so is arbitrary and violates the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment.
