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 landowner's power-of-attorney holder allegedly sold disputed land to the appellants' predecessor, which the landowner challenged in a civil suit, denying that any such sale power existed. While that suit was pending, the landowner separately sold the same land to a third person (the respondent) for Rs. 10 lakhs, who then sought to be added as a co-plaintiff in the ongoing suit. Shortly after that application was filed, the landowner's heirs struck a settlement with the appellants and tried to withdraw the suit entirely, and the trial court dismissed the respondent's impleadment request, prompting him to approach the High Court, which ruled in his favour.
The Supreme Court held that although the respondent had wrongly cited Order I Rule 10 CPC instead of the applicable Order XXII Rule 10 CPC (dealing with assignment of interest during a pending suit), this technical mislabelling was not fatal since the power to pass the order existed regardless. As the assignee of the original plaintiff's rights through a registered sale deed, the respondent had a vital interest in the outcome of the suit and was entitled to continue it, especially since the subsequent "settlement" between the heirs and the appellants transferred no actual title or payment and could not extinguish his rights. The Court held that the heirs' later withdrawal of the suit could not affect the respondent's independent right to litigate the property dispute, and dismissed the appeal.
When someone buys property that is already the subject of pending litigation, they can step into that very suit as a party to protect their purchase: the original parties cannot simply settle or withdraw the case behind the buyer's back to defeat that right.
