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 appellants had obtained a decree for specific performance of a 1986 agreement to purchase a portion of a Hyderabad property and, after the decree attained finality, began executing it through court in 2001. At that stage, respondents 1-3, who were not parties to the original suit, objected to the execution claiming independent title through sale deeds from a different vendor, and the appellants' own earlier suits to cancel those sale deeds had been dismissed for default and never revived. The executing court initially rejected the respondents' objection, but the first appellate court and then the High Court held that since the respondents were not parties to the specific performance suit, the decree did not bind them and the appellants would have to file a fresh suit against them.
The Supreme Court held that the appellants, having allowed their own suits challenging the rival sale deeds to be dismissed for default and never pursuing restoration, could not now revive that same title dispute indirectly through execution proceedings: this amounted to an abuse of the process of court. Relying on principles of finality of litigation, the doctrine against relitigation from K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, and the public policy underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 CPC as explained in Sarguja Transport Service, the Court found the appellants could not selectively invoke the judicial process to their advantage after abandoning the parallel challenge to the rival title. While disagreeing with some of the reasoning of the lower appellate court, the Supreme Court agreed with its ultimate conclusion and upheld the judgment, dismissing the appeal.
A litigant who deliberately lets a suit challenging a rival claim lapse cannot later resurrect the same issue through a different proceeding, such as execution of an unrelated decree. Courts treat such selective, opportunistic use of litigation as an abuse of process, regardless of whether strict res judicata applies.
