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 Union of India had already lost an identical batch of appeals on the same legal issue in a judgment dated 8 December 2017 (Union of India v. Balbir Singh Turn), and a further, nearly identical appeal on the very same point was again dismissed by the Supreme Court on 9 March 2018 with costs of Rs. 1 lakh, with the Court specifically warning the Government to be more careful about repetitive litigation. Despite this, the Union of India filed yet another appeal (this one, arising from Diary No. 8754 of 2018) on 8 March 2018 raising the same already-settled issue, and did not withdraw it even after the earlier dismissals, engaging ten lawyers including an Additional Solicitor General and a Senior Advocate to argue it.
The Supreme Court held that filing and pursuing this appeal was frivolous given that the identical issue had already been conclusively decided against the Union of India twice, and criticized the Government's disregard for its own "National Litigation Policy," which calls for avoiding unnecessary appeals and promptly withdrawing vexatious litigation. The Court noted that such repeated, pointless litigation wastes court time, burdens other litigants whose cases get delayed, and needlessly costs taxpayers money through legal fees. It dismissed the appeal once again, imposing costs of Rs. 1,00,000 to be deposited with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee for juvenile justice work, and listed the matter for compliance after five weeks.
Government departments, like any litigant, must stop pursuing cases once an identical legal question has already been finally decided against them: repeatedly re-filing settled issues wastes public money and court resources and can attract escalating costs.
