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 moreSEBI (the Board) had filed several appeals before the Bombay High Court against common orders of the Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), as permitted by the then-existing Section 15Z of the SEBI Act. While those appeals were pending, Section 15Z was amended (with retrospective effect from 29.10.2002) to shift the second-appeal forum for SAT orders from the High Court to the Supreme Court, and to limit such appeals to questions of law only. Videocon, the opposite party in those SAT appeals, argued before the High Court and then the Supreme Court that once the forum changed, the Board's appeals already pending in the High Court before the amendment could no longer be heard there, and should instead have to be pursued (if at all) only before the Supreme Court; the High Court held that appeals filed before the amendment remained validly before it, while appeals filed after the amendment did not, and Videocon challenged the former part of that ruling.
The Supreme Court held that a change of appellate forum is not automatically "merely procedural", relying on its own precedent (including Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises and a Commissioner of Income Tax, Orissa ruling), it held that once an appeal has actually been filed in a particular forum, that forum becomes a vested, substantive right unaffected by a later change in law unless the amending provision expressly says otherwise; Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 reinforces that an amendment which is not expressly retrospective does not disturb pending proceedings. Since none of the Board's appeals affected here had been filed after the amendment came into force, they remained validly and permanently before the High Court, and the Court found no merit in Videocon's challenge. Invoking its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Court directed that this ruling would govern all the connected cases disposed of together by the High Court's common impugned order, and dismissed the appeal.
When a law changes which court or tribunal hears an appeal, cases already filed in the original forum generally stay there as a protected, vested right: a litigant cannot use a later change in the appellate forum to argue that an already-pending appeal against them has become invalid, unless the amending law says so explicitly.
