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 appellants were Chairpersons of District Milk Producers' Co-operative Unions in Rajasthan, whose bye-laws set eligibility conditions (such as minimum milk supply and audit classification) for representatives contesting elections to the Unions' management committees. A batch of writ petitions succeeded before a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, who declared several of these bye-laws ultra vires the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act, 2001, and directed that future elections be held without reference to them (though the 2010 elections already held were left undisturbed). A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the State's intra-court appeal and affirmed this ruling, leading to the present appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the impugned bye-laws were validly traceable to the rule-making power under Section 8 read with Schedule B of the Act, 2001, and that they regulated eligibility to contest elections in a manner consistent with the statute, supplementing rather than supplanting it, so they did not suffer from excessive delegation or conflict with the State's separate rule-making power under Section 123. The Court found the High Court had wrongly conflated the right to vote with the distinct right to contest elections, and had erred in its reading of the statutory scheme. Separately, and just as significantly, the Court held that the High Court had committed a jurisdictional error by striking down the bye-laws in a manner that operated "in rem", affecting all similarly placed co-operative societies across the state, even though many of those societies were never made parties to or heard in the proceedings, violating natural justice. On both grounds, the High Court's judgment was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.
A court cannot invalidate a rule or regulation with effects reaching far beyond the parties actually before it. Anyone whose rights or governance structure would be affected must be given notice and a chance to be heard before such a wide-ranging order is passed; skipping that step is a fatal procedural defect, regardless of the merits of the underlying legal question.
