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 slum-redevelopment project in Mumbai involved a chain of agreements: the original developer (respondent 1) sub-developed rights to respondent 2, who in turn contracted the appellant to build and share 55%/45% of the free-sale flats. A dispute between the appellant and respondent 2 went to arbitration. Separately, respondent 1 sued the appellant and respondent 2 for its own share of flats, and while that suit was pending, respondent 1 and respondent 2 struck a private "Consent Terms" settlement requiring 8 additional flats and 16 parking spaces, on top of what had already been resolved in arbitration, to be handed over by the appellant, even though the appellant was not a party to that settlement. The Bombay High Court's Single Judge, and then a Division Bench on appeal, upheld a mandatory interim order compelling the appellant to hand over those flats before the underlying suit was even finally decided.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing a mandatory injunction at the interlocutory stage against a party (the appellant) who was not bound by a settlement reached only between the other two parties, and by effectively granting final relief (handing over 8 flats and 16 parking spaces) before trial. Citing Dorab Cawasji Warden, the Court reiterated that interlocutory mandatory injunctions are an extraordinary remedy meant only to preserve or restore the pre-dispute status quo, not to create a new state of affairs or decide the suit's merits in advance; and it held that "moulding of relief" to do complete justice is a principle for final disposal of a suit, not for interim orders. The Court set aside the High Court's mandatory order and instead revived the original, narrower ad-interim consent arrangement from December 2012, to continue until the suit's final disposal.
Courts cannot use an interim/interlocutory order to hand one litigant a final-looking victory, especially one based on a private settlement between other parties that was never agreed to by the person being ordered to comply: interim relief must preserve the status quo, not pre-decide the case.
