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 appellant booked four flats in a Gurgaon housing project and filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) alleging the developer failed to execute sale agreements for the flats. The developer objected that booking four flats showed a commercial, resale intent, which would disqualify the appellant from being a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The NCDRC agreed with the developer and dismissed the complaint outright, without taking any evidence, reasoning that booking multiple flats and not naming specific family beneficiaries showed a profit motive.
The Supreme Court held that the NCDRC had decided the maintainability question on mere assumption ("ipse dixit") rather than on evidence: the fact that someone books multiple flats or invests before a project receives regulatory approval does not, by itself, conclusively prove a commercial/resale purpose. The Court found that whether the appellant qualified as a "consumer" was a factual question that could only be properly decided after pleadings were complete and both sides had a chance to present evidence. It therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the NCDRC's order, and restored the original consumer complaint to the NCDRC for a fresh decision (including on the consumer-status question) after evidence is led, also permitting the first respondent, who had been proceeded against ex-parte, to file a written statement and contest the case.
A consumer forum cannot dismiss a complaint as not maintainable based on assumptions about a buyer's intentions (such as purchasing multiple units), whether someone is a genuine "consumer" or a commercial investor must be established through evidence and a fair hearing, not inferred from circumstantial guesswork alone.
