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 moreThree individuals: Vishnu Vardhan, T. Sudhakar, and Reddy Veeranna: jointly purchased land in Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh in 1997, part of which was later acquired by NOIDA for a commercial hub, entitling the owners to large compensation. Over the following two decades, Reddy allegedly maneuvered through a series of suits, a disputed compromise, and proceedings from which Vishnu and Sudhakar were kept out, ultimately securing a High Court order in 2021 declaring him the sole owner and entitled to full compensation. Vishnu challenged this before the Supreme Court through a civil appeal and a separate writ petition, alleging that Reddy had practised fraud on the courts at multiple stages to cut out his co-owners.
After an extensive 148-paragraph review of the tangled decades-long litigation history, the Supreme Court held that Reddy had indeed played fraud on the courts to secure exclusive ownership and compensation, and that "fraud unravels everything": a judgment or order obtained by fraud is a nullity that can be set aside even years later. The Court set aside the High Court's 2021 order declaring Reddy sole owner, declared its own earlier 2022 order in a related appeal (also procured by fraud) a nullity, and recalled a subsequent 2023 order, all done using the Court's inherent powers, going beyond the specific relief Vishnu had sought because of the trio's overall "unbecoming conduct." The underlying writ petition was remanded in its entirety to the High Court, with directions to implead Vishnu and Sudhakar and decide compensation and ownership afresh after hearing all parties, with the Chief Justice of the High Court requested to personally preside over the bench given the scale of the fraud detected. Vishnu's separate writ petition before the Supreme Court was dismissed since the same relief was now available through the remanded proceedings.
Courts will unwind even long-final judgments and orders, however old, if they are shown to have been obtained through fraud on the court: finality of litigation cannot be used as a shield to protect a dishonest litigant's ill-gotten gains, and co-owners who are deliberately kept out of proceedings affecting their property can get those proceedings reopened.
