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 tenant in Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, had already lost an eviction dispute at every level: the Rent Authority, the appellate District Judge, the High Court, and finally the Supreme Court itself, which had dismissed his SLP, review petition, and a further miscellaneous application, directing him to vacate by 31 March 2025. Instead of complying, the tenant filed a fresh "restoration application" before the very same Rent Authority (an Additional District Magistrate), who, acting in a separate capacity as an investigating authority looking into allegedly forged sale deeds, allowed the restoration and effectively reopened a matter the Supreme Court had already closed. The landlord successfully challenged this before the High Court, and the tenant then approached the Supreme Court again.
The Supreme Court refused to entertain the tenant's fresh petition, calling it a gross abuse of process and an attempt to overreach the Court's own final orders, and imposed a Rs. 5 lakh cost payable to the Supreme Court Middle Income Group Legal Aid Society (recorded in an earlier order dated 22 September 2025). It also issued a show-cause notice to the Additional District Magistrate/Rent Authority for entertaining and allowing the restoration application in apparent disregard of the Supreme Court's own prior orders. In this final judgment, the Court held that the officer, in her capacity as Rent Authority, had no jurisdiction to set aside her own findings/report rendered in her separate capacity as Additional District Magistrate investigating a criminal complaint: an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity, so the recall order dated 15 May 2025 was declared void. Having received an unconditional apology from the officer, the Court accepted it and clarified this would not affect her career progression, while reiterating the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to the finality of higher court orders.
Once a dispute has been conclusively decided up to the Supreme Court, a litigant cannot revive it through a fresh application before a lower authority, doing so is treated as an abuse of process and can attract heavy costs. Statutory authorities must also stay within the specific jurisdiction conferred on them and cannot use findings from one official capacity to override binding orders of a court while acting in another capacity.
