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 moreTo recover about Rs. 56 lakh in unpaid workmen's dues from a defaulting press business, the authorities attached and auctioned the owners' vacant land in Allahabad; Pravesh Kumar Sachdeva won the auction with a bid of Rs. 70 lakh in 2004. Although the 30-day objection window under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Rules passed without any timely objection reaching the District Magistrate, one co-owner (Alok Mitra) had filed an objection that was never communicated to the authority in time, later withdrew it himself, and all the owners accepted and kept the surplus sale proceeds above their dues. Years later, the other co-owners got the sale confirmation recalled and set aside, a decision the Allahabad High Court upheld, prompting Sachdeva and the person he had resold part of the land to, to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found the "objections" of 16 December 2004 had legally been filed only by Alok Mitra individually (since only he signed the vakalatnama authorising the advocate), not by the other co-owners as they later claimed: a claim the Court found self-contradictory on its own averments. The Court held that the co-owners' conduct, never raising a timely objection, applying for and actually receiving the surplus auction proceeds over their dues, amounted to a clear waiver and acquiescence in the sale, citing established precedent that waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right. Since there was no valid basis to disturb a confirmed sale that the owners had effectively accepted and profited from for over a decade, the High Court had erred in setting it aside; the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the auction sale.
If you accept and keep the benefit of a transaction (such as surplus sale proceeds) without timely objection, you cannot later be allowed to challenge that same transaction: courts treat this as a waiver of your right to object, and such inconsistent conduct will not be rewarded.
