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 respondents sued the appellants (the Corporation of Madras) for a permanent injunction over a piece of land in Chennai; the trial court dismissed all four connected suits. On first appeal, the respondents were permitted to introduce additional evidence, and the first Appellate Court relied on this new evidence to reverse the trial court and decree all four suits in the respondents' favour: a decision the Madras High Court upheld in second appeal. The Corporation appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors: it admitted and relied upon the respondents' additional evidence to decide the appeal on merits without giving the appellants any chance to file rebuttal evidence (causing real prejudice), and it failed to follow the correct procedural route under Order 41 Rules 23-A or 25 of the Civil Procedure Code for handling a case where additional evidence is taken on record at the appellate stage. Because both the first Appellate Court and the High Court overlooked these jurisdictional defects, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's and the first Appellate Court's orders, and remanded all four suits to the trial court for a full fresh retrial on merits, with both sides permitted to amend pleadings and lead additional evidence, to be completed within one year, without being influenced by any earlier findings.
An appellate court cannot admit new evidence and decide a case on its basis without giving the opposing side a fair chance to rebut it; doing so is a jurisdictional error that can require the entire case to be sent back for a fresh trial, regardless of how long the litigation has already run.
