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 group of flat buyers in a Haryana housing project ("Aravali Heights") did not receive possession within the promised three years, and found the project's basic infrastructure (roads, water, sewerage, electricity) incomplete. Nineteen buyers jointly approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking delayed-possession penalties, refunds, and completion of the project, but the Commission dismissed their complaint (and a similar one by four other buyers) as not maintainable, relying on its own larger-bench ruling that a joint complaint under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act must be filed on behalf of all similarly affected consumers, with the court's permission and following the class-action procedure under Order I Rule 8 CPC, not just by a subset of them.
The Supreme Court agreed with the National Commission, holding that Section 12(1)(c) and Section 13(6) of the Act must be read together, and that any complaint filed by "one or more consumers" on behalf of a class must follow the Order I Rule 8 CPC procedure (including permission and representative notice to the whole class): a complaint cannot be filed for just a subset of similarly affected buyers to sidestep this requirement. Since the appellants expressly declined to undertake that formal class-action procedure (citing cost), the Court upheld the dismissal for non-maintainability. However, recognising that pleadings and evidence had already been fully exchanged over three years, it allowed the buyers to pursue their claims afresh before the appropriate State Consumer Commission, continuing from the same stage reached before the National Commission rather than starting over.
When several people share the exact same grievance against the same builder or company, consumer law requires them to follow the formal class-action procedure (seeking permission and representing the whole affected group) rather than simply joining as a handful of co-complainants, skipping that formality can get even a genuine complaint thrown out on a technicality.
