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 were flat allottees in the "Lodha Venezia" and "Lodha Azzuro" projects who filed possession complaints against the developer entities before Maharashtra's Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA). RERA dismissed their complaints, and their subsequent appeals to the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai were themselves dismissed as time-barred. When the appellants approached the Bombay High Court, it declined to condone the delay, even while remarking that "in normal circumstances" it would have, and went on to comment on the merits of the underlying orders.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals on a narrow but important procedural ground: once the High Court itself accepted that the delay ought normally to have been condoned, it should have simply condoned the delay and sent the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal for a decision on merits. It had no business commenting on the merits of the underlying RERA orders at the limitation stage, especially since the Tribunal itself had never examined those merits. The Court set aside both the High Court's order and the Tribunal's refusal to condone delay, condoned the delay, and restored the appeals to the Tribunal for consideration on their own merits, expressing no view on the merits itself.
A court or tribunal deciding only whether to excuse a delay should confine its ruling to that question alone, straying into the merits of the underlying dispute at that stage can prejudice the eventual hearing and is itself a valid ground of appeal.
