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 appellants (plaintiffs) had sued claiming certain properties were their ancestral/private property and not trust property. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, the first Appellate Court (District Judge) reversed and decreed in the plaintiffs' favour, and the High Court, in a Second Appeal, reversed again and restored the dismissal, but did so on two "substantial questions of law" that it framed for the first time only in its final judgment, not at the admission stage as Section 100 CPC requires. The plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court against this High Court decision.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 100 CPC, a High Court's jurisdiction in a second appeal is confined to the substantial questions of law it formulates at the admission stage (or, if additional questions are needed later, only after giving reasons and allowing the parties a chance to be heard). Here, the High Court had framed six questions at admission but decided the case on two entirely different questions sprung for the first time in the final judgment, denying the appellants any opportunity to address the court on them: a jurisdictional error and a breach of natural justice. The Court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and sent the second appeal back to the High Court to be decided afresh on merits strictly within the proper Section 100 procedure, expressly directing that it be done expeditiously given its age; the Supreme Court itself did not comment on who should ultimately win the underlying property dispute.
A High Court cannot decide a second appeal on legal questions it never formally framed and gave the parties a chance to argue, doing so denies a fair hearing and can get the whole judgment set aside and sent back, regardless of which side might otherwise seem to have the stronger case on the facts.
