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 appellant, an elderly father-in-law, was proceeded against ex parte in a Family Court suit filed by his daughter-in-law for recovery of gold ornaments/maintenance, after he failed to appear in court. He applied to set aside the ex parte decree, but both that application and his subsequent appeal to the Kerala High Court were dismissed because the appeal was filed 554 days late, and the High Court refused to condone the delay. He claimed the delay was caused by prolonged heart disease and dengue fever during his late sixties, supported by medical documents, which the High Court itself did not dispute as genuine.
The Supreme Court held that where the facts and medical documents showing genuine illness were undisputed, the High Court should have taken a liberal view and treated the appellant's illness as "sufficient cause" under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It noted that the older, stricter requirement to explain delay "day by day" has since been diluted by later decisions and is no longer good law. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's order, and condoned the 554-day delay (subject to the appellant paying Rs. 10,000 in costs to the respondent), restoring his appeal to be decided by the High Court on its merits.
Courts should take a liberal, practical view of "sufficient cause" for delay under the Limitation Act, especially where genuine, well-documented illness of an elderly litigant is not disputed: a litigant need not explain every single day of delay if the overall cause shown is credible.
