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 shop had originally been allotted by the Haryana Urban Development Authority to a person who later died; his legal heirs continued to occupy the shop but had not paid the full allotment price, including interest that had been raised first to 15% and then to 18% on the unpaid balance. The Authority had passed an order resuming (taking back) the shop for non-payment, but the heirs remained in possession and appealed to the Supreme Court seeking to retain it.
The Court framed the issue narrowly, whether the heirs could keep the shop if they were willing to pay what was owed, and, based on the Authority's own calculation of the outstanding dues (agreed to by both sides' counsel), ordered that the heirs could retain the shop only if they paid Rs. 3,90,000 (the balance plus miscellaneous charges) by 30 April 2015; if they failed to pay by that date, they would lose any right to retain possession and the shop would be handed back to the Authority, with whatever they had already paid treated merely as occupation charges. The Court expressly noted this was a one-off arrangement based on the peculiar facts of this case and was not to be treated as a precedent.
Continued physical possession of an allotted property does not protect an allottee's rights if the agreed price (with interest) is not paid in full by the deadline fixed by the authority or the court: timely payment, not possession, is what secures the right to the property.
