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' land near Coimbatore was acquired by the State of Tamil Nadu in 1985. They challenged the acquisition in a writ petition, which a Single Judge of the Madras High Court allowed in 1997, quashing the acquisition notifications. The State's intra-court appeal succeeded before a Division Bench in 2008, which reinstated the acquisition, and a later review of that order was also dismissed, bringing the matter to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found that neither the Single Judge's original order nor the Division Bench's appellate order had actually engaged with the substantive grounds raised by the parties, both were essentially unreasoned, the Single Judge merely allowing the petition without discussion, and the Division Bench reversing it without recording its own findings on any issue. The Court held that a review petition cannot be used to do what should have been done in the appeal, and since the appellate order itself lacked reasoning, both the appellate and review orders were legally unsustainable. It set aside both orders and remanded the original writ petition to the Division Bench for a fresh, reasoned decision on merits, expressly stating it had not formed any view on who should ultimately win.
An appellate or review order that simply reverses a lower decision without recording independent reasoning on the issues raised is legally vulnerable, regardless of which side it favours; parties are entitled to a reasoned decision, not just an outcome.
