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 moreA Survey Commissioner under the Wakf Act, 1954 found that certain property (a dargah with attached land, shops and buildings) was "Wakf-Al-Allah" (a wakf dedicated purely to God, as opposed to one partly for family benefit), and this finding was published in the Official Gazette's list of wakfs in December 1965. The appellant, disputing this classification and claiming the property was actually "Wakf-Alal-Aulad" (a family-benefit wakf), filed a civil suit in January 1967: more than a year after the Gazette publication. All three courts below (trial court, first appeal, and High Court) held the suit was barred by the Act's one-year limitation period for challenging such a Gazette listing.
The Supreme Court held that the one-year limitation period under the proviso to Section 6 of the Wakf Act, 1954, running from the date of Gazette publication of the list of wakfs, squarely applied, and that the appellant's attempt to invoke the general three-year limitation period under Article 113 of the Limitation Act had no basis once the dispute was already covered by the Act's specific provision. The Court also rejected the appellant's alternative argument based on Section 56 of the Act (requiring two months' prior notice before suing the Wakf Board), holding that provision applies only to actions/inactions of the Board outside the Chapter II survey-and-listing process, not to challenges against the Gazette-published wakf classification itself. Finding no error in the concurrent factual findings of the three courts below that the suit was time-barred, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
When a specific law like the Wakf Act prescribes its own limitation period for challenging a particular type of decision (here, one year from Gazette publication), that specific period governs over the general limitation law, and a different statutory notice requirement meant for other kinds of claims cannot be used to get around it.
