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 moreIn a specific performance suit filed by the appellant-purchaser against several family members who owned a property, only one defendant (Respondent No. 1) filed a written statement; the trial court denied specific performance and ordered a refund instead. On appeal, the High Court heard arguments from counsel for Respondent No. 1 and reversed the trial court, decreeing specific performance in the purchaser's favour. Respondent No. 1 then filed a review petition claiming he had never actually appointed the counsel who argued on his behalf (no written Vakalatnama existed), and the High Court recalled its own judgment and restored the appeal for fresh hearing on this ground.
The Supreme Court examined the facts and found strong evidence, including affidavits from family members, that Respondent No. 1 had in fact authorised the lawyers to represent him, notwithstanding the missing written Vakalatnama; the absence of a formal Vakalatnama was, at most, a curable irregularity rather than proof that he was unrepresented. The Court also found that the additional argument Respondent No. 1 claimed was missed (regarding an injunction in a separate partition suit) had actually been considered in the original High Court judgment. Concluding that the result of the appeal would have been the same even accepting Respondent No. 1's version, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's recall order and restored the original judgment decreeing specific performance.
A court will not reopen a final judgment merely because a formal procedural document (like a Vakalatnama) is missing, if the surrounding evidence shows the party was in substance represented and would have lost the case regardless: review/recall powers are meant to correct real injustice, not technical irregularities with no effect on the outcome.
