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 moreThis dispute traces back to a long-running fight over provident fund dues the "Kelvin Trust" was ordered to transfer to the "Waverly Trust" after a 2002 High Court judgment, later affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2016. After Kelvin Jute Co. Ltd. merged into Trend Vyapaar Ltd., the new company deposited Rs. 1.95 crores with the Provident Fund Commissioner as directed. Trend Vyapaar Ltd. then filed miscellaneous applications (M.A. Nos. 2363 and 2364 of 2018) asking the Supreme Court to modify its earlier 2016 order, arguing its liability should be capped at the Rs. 1.95 crores already deposited (per a BIFR restructuring scheme) and that further interest/damages should not be imposed, also alleging fraud by the original claimants in obtaining the High Court decree.
The Supreme Court held that an application seeking to modify or recall its 2016 order, when that order had merely affirmed a final High Court judgment, would effectively amount to reviewing the underlying judgment, something it could not entertain in this format. It dismissed both modification applications (M.A. Nos. 2363 and 2364 of 2018), but gave the applicants liberty to instead approach the Calcutta High Court directly with a review petition specifically on the fraud allegation, directing that any such review filed within thirty days should not be dismissed as time-barred. The Court expressly clarified it was not opining on the merits of the fraud allegations themselves, leaving all contentions open for the High Court. It ordered the Rs. 1.95 crores already deposited (with accrued interest) to be transferred to the Waverly Trust, subject to whatever the High Court might later decide in any review proceeding.
A party cannot use a miscellaneous application to the Supreme Court to effectively re-open or modify a final judgment that the Court earlier only affirmed; serious allegations like fraud in obtaining a decree must instead be raised through a proper review petition before the court that originally passed that judgment.
