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 dispute traced back to a 1965 maintenance decree against a joint Hindu family, following which the family's land was sold at a court auction and passed through several subsequent buyers, eventually reaching the appellants. Family members who were not part of that original suit waited 17 years before filing a fresh suit in 1982 to set aside the 1965 decree and claim a share in the property. Both the trial court and the first appellate court dismissed that 1982 suit as hopelessly time-barred, but the High Court, in a second appeal, sent the case back to the trial court to hold a fresh trial specifically on the limitation question.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to remand the case after more than two decades, since the question of limitation had already been thoroughly examined by both lower courts as part of the broader dispute, even without being framed as a separate formal issue, and that omission caused no real prejudice to either side. The evidence showed the family members knew of the 1965 proceedings and the subsequent sale for 17 years before acting, and the property had since passed through multiple bona fide purchasers whose titles deserved protection. The Court restored the original findings that the suit was time-barred and set aside the High Court's remand order.
Limitation periods for challenging a property sale or decree are strictly enforced, especially once a purchaser has bought the property in good faith. Courts will not reopen settled findings of fact and law after decades merely because a technical procedural step, like framing a separate issue, was skipped without causing real harm.
