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 moreSuresh Chandra had been the highest bidder in a public auction of a plot of land in Agra conducted by the U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad (housing board), but the Parishad rejected the bids as too low and decided to re-auction the land. During the pendency of his writ petition challenging the decision to re-auction (which the High Court had allowed to proceed subject to the outcome of his case), the Parishad sold the land in a second auction to another bidder and executed a sale deed, and the High Court then dismissed Suresh Chandra's petition on the ground that nothing survived once the sale was complete. He appealed to the Supreme Court on the limited question of why the land should not be auctioned yet again.
The Supreme Court found that the sale to the second bidder could not defeat the appellant's rights because the re-auction had always been expressly made subject to the outcome of his pending writ petition, and the buyer knew this. The Court also found the Parishad had given inadequate publicity for both earlier auctions (attracting only two bidders each time) and had fixed an unreasonably low reserve price, given that both bidders had later voluntarily offered far higher amounts. To do complete justice and ensure a fair market price, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, declared the earlier sale deed void, and directed a fresh, widely-publicized auction within six months with a reserve price set after expert consultation, while ordering refunds (with 6% interest) to both the appellant and the earlier purchaser and a refund of stamp duty to the latter.
Public authorities auctioning land must give genuinely wide publicity and set a realistic reserve price; courts can step in to order a fresh, transparent auction, even voiding an already-executed sale deed, if an earlier sale was conducted without adequate competition or at an artificially low price, especially where it was always subject to a pending court case.
