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 moreIn 1992, customs authorities seized 252.177 kgs of allegedly smuggled silver from the appellant. In 1996, the Commissioner of Customs ordered confiscation of the silver and imposed a Rs. 50,000 penalty. The appellant's appeal to the CEGAT (customs tribunal) was dismissed in 2000, though the penalty was reduced to Rs. 30,000. Instead of pursuing the further statutory appeal to the High Court within the 180-day limitation period, the appellant waited until 2003 to file a writ petition directly in the Rajasthan High Court, which was dismissed both for bypassing the alternative remedy and on merits.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition. It reaffirmed that while availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not automatically bar a writ petition, courts should ordinarily decline to entertain a writ where an equally efficacious alternative remedy (here, a reference to the very same High Court under the Customs Act) exists, especially when invoked after the prescribed limitation period lapsed due to the litigant's own delay. The Court cited long-standing Constitution Bench precedents (Thansingh Nathmal and A.V. Venkateswaran) holding that a party who lets a statutory remedy lapse through his own fault cannot then claim discretionary writ relief. It also held that the writ petition lacked proper pleadings to show the confiscation order's validity was actually argued before the CEGAT and left unaddressed.
If a law provides a specific appeal or review process (especially one going to the High Court itself), a litigant must pursue it within the deadline; delay in doing so cannot later be cured by filing a writ petition instead, and courts will not indulge such "forum shopping" after the fact.
