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 moreFamily members sued each other over partition and separate possession of ancestral agricultural land. The trial court ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, but the first appellate court reversed this based on a document (Ex-A) and ruled against them. When the plaintiffs tried to appeal further to the Patna High Court, the High Court dismissed their "second appeal" at the very first hearing ("in limine"), holding that it did not raise any "substantial question of law": a threshold requirement for such appeals to even be heard.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to reject the appeal outright. It explained that disputes over how a document should be interpreted, whether it amounts to a valid "partition deed," whether it needed registration, and whether objections to its admissibility could still be raised, as arose from Ex-A here, do qualify as "substantial questions of law" under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Supreme Court itself framed five specific legal questions about Ex-A that the second appeal should examine. It therefore set aside the High Court's order and sent the case back to the High Court to decide the second appeal properly on its merits, within six months, without expressing any opinion on who should ultimately win the underlying partition dispute.
A "second appeal" cannot be thrown out at the first hearing just because it looks like a dispute over facts: if the real issue is how a document should be legally interpreted or whether it is valid, that is a "substantial question of law" which the High Court is bound to actually examine.
