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 plaintiff filed a single civil suit before the District Judge, Indore, claiming a one-third share in two separate properties belonging to an extended family, one plot in Indore and another flat in Bandra, Mumbai, and also sought to challenge a will as forged. Two of the defendants connected only to the Mumbai property asked the trial court to strike out all pleadings and relief relating to that property, arguing the Indore court had no territorial jurisdiction over the Mumbai flat and that combining two unrelated properties, with different defendants and different causes of action, in a single suit amounted to misjoinder. The trial court agreed and struck out the Mumbai-property claims, a decision the High Court upheld on writ petition, leading to this further appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Indore and Mumbai properties arose from entirely different causes of action involving different sets of defendants, and that Order II Rule 2 and Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code only permit joining multiple causes of action in one suit when they are against the same defendant(s) jointly, not when, as here, separate defendants are connected to separate, unrelated properties. The Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendants could not raise misjoinder since they had not separately challenged the "cause of action," noting their application had expressly pleaded both misjoinder of parties and of causes of action together. Finding no error in either the trial court's or the High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court upheld the striking out of the Mumbai-property pleadings and dismissed the appeal, meaning the plaintiff's claim to the Mumbai flat could not be pursued within this Indore suit (though the dispute over the Indore property and the challenge to the will could continue separately).
A single lawsuit cannot bundle together claims to unrelated properties involving different sets of defendants and different facts merely because they involve related family members: each distinct property dispute, with its own cause of action and defendants, generally needs to be pursued in its own appropriately-filed suit.
