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 tenant of a Mumbai building, whose fellow tenants had formed a cooperative housing society and acquired the building after their landlord company went into liquidation, was offered society membership in 1995 on payment of Rs. 5 lakh, but delayed payment for decades citing a dispute over how the amount was calculated. After his death, his legal heirs (the appellants) sought to pay the amount and be admitted as members, and then sold the flat to a third-party purchaser. Some other society members challenged this belated admission in the Bombay High Court, which set aside the regulatory order that had granted the heirs membership, prompting both the heirs and the flat's purchaser to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that since the heirs' occupation of the flat had never been challenged as illegal and no eviction proceedings had ever been initiated against them before 2025, denying them membership while they continued to occupy the flat would create an unfair anomaly. It noted that the society's own General Body had, at a meeting in September 2025, ratified both the heirs' membership and the subsequent transfer of the flat to the purchaser, and that this ratification had not been challenged anywhere. The Court held the High Court was wrong to find that the regulatory authority (Joint Registrar) had exceeded its jurisdiction, since the heirs had properly exhausted statutory remedies of appeal and revision. It therefore set aside the relevant portions of the High Court's order and recognized the heirs' membership and the subsequent transfer as valid, while leaving open the right of aggrieved society members to seek additional interest for the delayed payment.
Long, undisputed occupation of a property coupled with an unrevoked offer of membership can support a belated claim to formal membership rights, especially where the governing body itself later ratifies the claim; procedural delay alone does not automatically defeat a substantive entitlement that was never actually withdrawn or legally contested.
