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 employees of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) who formed a co-operative housing society in 1999 to seek allotment of land from the Authority for building homes on a leasehold basis. Over several years, the eligibility criteria for society membership and the extent of land to be allotted were revised by the Authority and the Maharashtra Government, eventually reducing the allotted land from 13,700 to 10,700 sq. mtrs. and fixing eligibility as of the date of the final allotment letter (11.12.2003) rather than the appellants' preferred earlier date. The appellants challenged this before the Bombay High Court, which dismissed their writ petition, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Society itself had accepted the Authority's eligibility cut-off date of 11.12.2003 through its own correspondence, and could not later question a condition it had consented to. The Court found no merit in the appellants' argument that eligibility should instead be assessed as of the earlier resolution dates (07.06.1997 or 05.11.1998), since the Society's own conduct showed it had sought and accepted a fresh eligibility determination. The Court also noted the reduction in allotted land area was a legitimate consequence of excluding non-eligible members from the final list. Finding no infirmity in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
When a group or society itself accepts a condition (such as an eligibility cut-off date) through its own conduct and correspondence, its individual members cannot later turn around and challenge that very condition in court: courts hold parties to positions they have earlier accepted.
