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 government contractor had his road-construction contract with the Tamil Nadu government partially terminated in 1999 for alleged slow progress. After his writ petition and writ appeal against the termination failed, he filed a civil suit in 2002 claiming over Rs. 3.30 crores owed to him, relying on a legal notice and two letters he had earlier sent to the government. The trial court held there was sufficient compliance with the mandatory pre-suit notice requirement under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and awarded him about Rs. 87 lakhs, but the High Court reversed this on the technical ground that the notice did not strictly satisfy Section 80's requirements, making the suit not maintainable.
The Supreme Court held that the legal notice dated 14.01.2000 and the follow-up letter of 29.01.2000, though they did not expressly cite "Section 80," substantially and sufficiently communicated the cause of action, the relief claimed, and were properly served on the government more than two months before the suit was filed, satisfying the "substantial compliance" rule under Section 80(3) CPC. The Court relied on a line of precedent holding that Section 80 is a procedural safeguard meant to give the government a fair chance to settle claims, not a technical trap to defeat genuine claims, and should not be read in a pedantic manner divorced from common sense. It set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's correctness on this notice issue, remitting the underlying appeals back to the High Court to be decided on their merits.
A citizen suing the government does not need to use the exact words "Section 80 notice", as long as a notice clearly identifies the complaint and the relief sought, and is properly delivered to the right government authority at least two months before filing suit, courts will treat it as valid compliance rather than throwing out the case on a technicality.
