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 appellants had lost a land-revision dispute and their writ petition before the Bombay High Court, then obtained liberty to withdraw an intra-court appeal and instead file a review petition. Their review application had filing defects that the High Court Registry flagged, and when they failed to cure these defects in time, the Registrar ordered the review application rejected. The appellants challenged this rejection through a Civil Application, but the High Court's Single Judge dismissed that application too, purely on the ground that the appellants had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in curing the defects, without the underlying land dispute ever being heard on merits.
The Supreme Court, invoking Justice Vivian Bose's classic observations in Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah (that procedural rules exist to facilitate justice, not to punish parties through overly technical enforcement), held that the High Court should have taken a more liberal view and given the appellants one more opportunity to cure the filing defects rather than shutting them out on a pure delay technicality. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order dismissing the Civil Application was set aside, and the delay in filing was condoned; the appellants were given one month as an outer limit to cure the defects. The Review Application itself was then to be placed before the appropriate Bench of the High Court for a fresh hearing on its own merits.
Courts should interpret procedural rules on delay and filing defects liberally and in the interest of substantial justice, rather than letting technical non-compliance permanently shut a litigant out of having their underlying dispute actually heard.
