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 moreA charitable trust owned land in Mumbai that had been leased in 1893 to a company that eventually became Podar Mills, a cotton mill. After the lease expired in 1990, the mill continued as a "protected" statutory tenant. Parliament later nationalised several textile undertakings, including Podar Mills, and the National Textile Corporation ("NTC") took over running the mill; a 2011 Supreme Court judgment had gone against NTC on the Trust's eviction claim. NTC then sought a review of that 2011 judgment, while the Trust filed a contempt petition alleging NTC had failed to comply with the Court's earlier directions, and matters became more complicated when, while the review was pending, Parliament passed a 2014 validation law retrospectively transferring the statutory tenancy rights from NTC to the Union of India itself.
The Court held that because of the 2014 Validation Act's retrospective effect, the statutory tenancy rights in the mill property had, by legal fiction, shifted from NTC to the Central Government (Union of India) with effect from 1 April 1994, meaning the earlier decree and NTC's undertakings to vacate had become legally unenforceable against NTC. On that basis, the Court declined to proceed with contempt action against NTC, since the foundation for that action no longer existed in law. It disposed of the review petition, the contempt petition, and NTC's application for directions, holding that the Trust (as landlord) must instead pursue an appropriate remedy against the Union of India under rent-control law if it wishes to recover possession, and that the Trust remains free to separately challenge the validity of the 2014 Validation Act (a challenge already pending before the Bombay High Court in a different case). The Court also granted the Trust liberty to revive the contempt proceeding later if that separate challenge to the Validation Act succeeds.
When a law is retrospectively amended mid-litigation to shift legal liability from one party to another (here, from a public corporation to the Union Government itself), a court will not hold the original party in contempt for non-compliance once the legal basis for the original direction has been removed, but the underlying claim isn't extinguished, it must instead be redirected against whoever the law now makes responsible.
