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 moreS.S. Sarvesh won a civil suit for declaration of title and injunction over a plot of land against the Mysore Urban Development Authority. The Authority's first appeal against that decree was dismissed in default when its counsel failed to appear on the hearing date, and the Appellate Court later refused to recall that dismissal and restore the appeal. Instead of filing the correct statutory appeal against that refusal, the Authority filed a writ petition in the Karnataka High Court, which was dismissed on merits, leading to this appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court first clarified that the Authority had used the wrong remedy: the correct route against refusal to restore a defaulted appeal was a statutory appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(t) of the Code of Civil Procedure, not a writ petition, and the High Court should have converted or redirected the petition instead of ruling on its merits. Going further, the Court held that the lower courts had erred in refusing restoration at all, invoking the principle (from a classic precedent, Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah) that procedural rules exist to facilitate justice, not to trip up litigants, and that a dismissal "in default" (without a hearing) is fundamentally different from dismissal after a hearing on merits. Since the Authority's explanation for its lawyer's non-appearance showed sufficient cause, the Court allowed the appeal, restored the first appeal for hearing on its merits (subject to the Authority paying Rs. 10,000 in costs to the respondent), and directed the parties to appear before the Appellate Court to fix a hearing date, expressly leaving the underlying land dispute itself undecided.
Losing a case purely because a lawyer failed to show up in court is not the same as losing on the merits: courts should generally give a litigant a chance to be heard (often with a cost penalty to compensate the other side) rather than shutting the door permanently over a procedural default, and using the wrong appellate remedy (like a writ instead of a statutory appeal) can itself complicate a case.
