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 woman was allotted a low-income-group tenement by the Rajasthan Housing Board in 1992, with a balance of Rs. 47,674 payable at the time of possession, but she never deposited the balance and the Board eventually cancelled the allotment. She filed a consumer complaint only in 2008, 16 years after the allotment and a decade after being told she did not qualify for a special payment-exemption scheme, disputing that she had ever been given a possession letter or cancellation notice. Consumer forums gave conflicting rulings, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ultimately ruled in her favour, restoring an order directing the Board to hand over the tenement, prompting the Board's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found that the respondent's own letters to the Board, written in 1996 and 2008, expressly admitted she was financially unable to pay the balance: directly undercutting her claim before the consumer forums that no possession letter had ever reached her requiring payment. The Court held that her complaint, filed 16 years after allotment and a decade after her exemption request was rejected, was hopelessly barred by the limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that the Board could not in any event be bound to honour 1992 pricing after such a long delay. The Court set aside the NCDRC's judgment directing allotment, but using its Article 142 power to do complete justice, directed the Board to pay the respondent a total of Rs. 1 lakh (including refund of her deposit) within two months, disposing of the appeal on that basis.
Consumers must act within the statutory limitation period: a complaint filed many years after a cause of action arises can fail on delay alone, however sympathetic the underlying facts, and courts may still order a modest monetary remedy to balance equities even while rejecting the original relief claimed.
