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 moreAfter a civil court decreed that the State of Manipur and its officers must vacate and hand over certain land to the respondent, the State tried to appeal but first filed its First Appeal before the wrong forum (the District Judge), only discovering the error and refiling before the High Court of Manipur after a total delay of 312 days. The High Court refused to condone this delay, noting 44 days were explained by the time lost at the wrong forum, but roughly eleven months before that were unexplained, and dismissed the appeal without examining its merits. The State of Manipur appealed to the Supreme Court, while the respondent argued the matter was moot since execution of the decree (handing over possession) had already concluded.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the unexplained delay was real and that ordinary "sufficient cause" standards were not met, but held that courts should be mindful of the slow, impersonal nature of government decision-making, since lost appeals due to individual officials' lapses end up harming the State's institutional interests rather than the individuals at fault. Given that the land involved was described as being of strategic/security importance, the Court held it was in the interest of justice to let the State's challenge be examined on merits rather than shutting it out purely on a limitation technicality. Exercising its discretionary power under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Court condoned the delay, subject to the State paying Rs. 50,000 in costs, restored the First Appeal for decision on its merits by the High Court, and left the disputed question of possession/execution to be resolved as part of that First Appeal; it also directed refund of a sum earlier deposited by the State in the executing court. The appeal before the Supreme Court was thus allowed.
Courts can be more lenient in condoning procedural delays by government bodies when a case has significant public or strategic importance and a party's substantive rights would otherwise be lost purely on a technical ground, though such leniency usually still comes with a costs penalty for the unexplained delay.
