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 two mutts were in long-running litigation over possession and rights to land, including the right to perform religious rites (Aradhanas/Poojas) at certain Vrindavanas on the disputed property. After the First Appellate Court decreed partly in Uttaradi Mutt's favour and rejected Raghavendra Swamy Mutt's applications to bring additional evidence on record, Raghavendra Swamy Mutt won a second appeal before the Karnataka High Court, which reversed that rejection, allowed the additional evidence, and sent the entire case back to the trial court to be decided afresh in light of it. Uttaradi Mutt appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging both the decision to admit the additional evidence and the decision to send the whole matter back to square one at the trial court.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reasoning for allowing the additional evidence (mostly government records bearing directly on who owned how much land), finding no fault with that part of the ruling. However, it held the High Court went too far in remanding the entire suit back to the trial court for a fresh decision: under the Civil Procedure Code's remand provisions (Order XLI Rules 23, 23A, 25, 27 & 28), an appellate court admitting additional evidence should generally either take that evidence itself or have the court whose decision is under appeal (here, the First Appellate Court) record it, rather than restarting the whole trial from scratch. The Court therefore set aside the High Court's order only to the extent of sending the case to the trial court, and instead restored the second appeal to the High Court's own file, directing the High Court to frame specific points for additional evidence, have the First Appellate Court record that evidence and report back, and then itself finally decide the substantial questions of law in the second appeal.
When an appellate court decides new evidence should be allowed in on appeal, the law gives it specific, limited options for how to get that evidence onto the record (take it itself, or send it to the court below for recording): it cannot simply use that as a reason to unwind the whole case back to a full fresh trial.
