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 original plaintiff, Sucha Singh, had agreed to buy a house in Delhi from the respondent and paid part of the price, but when the respondent allegedly tried to dispossess him, Sucha Singh first filed a suit only for a permanent injunction. He later withdrew that injunction suit, telling the trial court he intended to file fresh, appropriate proceedings, and subsequently filed a new suit seeking specific performance of the sale agreement. The trial court and the Delhi High Court held this second suit was barred because the first suit had been withdrawn without the trial court expressly granting liberty to file a fresh suit, and dismissed it under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.
The Supreme Court examined the record of the earlier withdrawal and found that the plaintiff's recorded statement that he wanted to withdraw the suit in order to pursue appropriate proceedings, combined with the trial court's order permitting withdrawal, together satisfied the requirement of Order 23 Rule 1(3) of the Code, meaning permission to file a fresh suit did not need to be stated in so many separate words. The Court held that the lower courts had wrongly treated the second suit as barred by Order 2 Rule 2, set aside their judgments, dismissed the respondent's application under Order VII Rule 11, and declared the civil suit maintainable. The case was restored to the trial court's file with a direction to decide it on merits, preferably within one year, without being influenced by any of the Supreme Court's observations.
When a plaintiff withdraws a suit and clearly states on record that it is to pursue the correct remedy elsewhere, and the court permits the withdrawal, that combination can itself amount to the "liberty to file a fresh suit" required by law: it need not be spelled out as a separate, explicit sentence in the withdrawal order.
