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 moreThis appeal by the State of Punjab against Harbans Kaur (since deceased, represented by her legal representatives) was one of several connected matters arising from the same underlying dispute as a batch of appeals led by Civil Appeal No. 2145 of 2016, which the Supreme Court had already decided by judgment dated 11.01.2017, sending those matters back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The Court's own order in this appeal does not independently narrate the facts of the dispute, since it disposes of the matter purely by applying its earlier ruling in the connected batch.
Since the issue in this appeal was identical to the one already decided in the batch of connected appeals (Civil Appeal No. 2145 of 2016 and others), where the Court had sent the matters back to the High Court by its judgment dated 11.01.2017, the Court held it unnecessary to issue fresh notice to the respondents and disposed of this appeal in the same terms as that earlier judgment, i.e., remanding this matter to the High Court as well. The appellants were directed to serve a copy of the appeal and judgment on the respondents, with no order as to costs.
When several appeals raise the same underlying legal question, the Supreme Court will apply the ruling already laid down for the lead/connected batch to the remaining matters rather than re-deciding the same point afresh, which is why the final outcome here (remand to the High Court) depends entirely on the earlier 11.01.2017 batch judgment rather than any fresh reasoning in this particular order.
