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 buyer under an agreement to sell agricultural land in Maharashtra first filed only a suit for injunction when the seller refused to execute the sale deed and tried to obstruct his possession, even though that plaint itself stated he intended to later sue for specific performance. He later filed a separate suit for specific performance of the sale agreement without ever seeking the court's leave to split his reliefs. The trial court, first appellate court (after conflicting views and a remand), and the Bombay High Court in second appeal all ultimately held the second suit barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the CPC, which generally requires a plaintiff to claim all reliefs arising from one cause of action in a single suit unless leave is obtained to omit some.
The Supreme Court held that the earlier injunction suit and the later specific-performance suit arose from the same cause of action (the same agreement to sell, the same payment of earnest money, and the same refusal to perform), and since the buyer admittedly never sought leave of court to omit the specific-performance relief from the earlier suit, the bar under Order 2 Rule 2(3) applied. The Court distinguished the Constitution Bench ruling in Gurbux Singh v. Bhooralal (which required the earlier plaint to be proved in evidence) because here the certified copy of the earlier plaint had in fact been placed on record, admitted without objection, and relied upon by both sides, so no prejudice resulted. The Court therefore upheld the dismissal of the specific-performance suit, but exercised its special constitutional power under Article 142 to direct the seller to refund, with 9% interest, the earnest money and the further sale consideration the buyer had deposited in court, so that the buyer was not left without any remedy for the money he had paid.
If you may need more than one legal remedy arising from the same set of facts (e.g., both an injunction and specific performance), you must either claim them together in one suit or formally seek the court's permission to sue separately later: otherwise a later suit for the omitted relief can be permanently barred, even if the court still ensures some monetary fairness is restored.
