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 respondents sued for a declaration of title and an injunction over land in Tripura, claiming they had purchased it through a chain of sale deeds originating from Aftaruddin, who held the land as an "under-raiyat" (a tenant-like status) but who had executed a sale deed describing himself as a full "raiyat" (owner). Aftaruddin's defence was that, as an under-raiyat, the law barred him from transferring his rights at all. The trial court and first appellate court agreed and dismissed the suit, but the High Court, in second appeal, reversed this and upheld the respondents' title.
The Supreme Court held that Section 108 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act clearly bars an under-raiyat from transferring his interest in the land, and this statutory protection, meant to prevent tenants from being pressured into giving up their rights, cannot be defeated simply because the sale deed falsely described Aftaruddin as a "raiyat." It found the mislabelling was itself part of a subterfuge benefiting the original raiyat's own daughter (who resold the land to the respondents), and held the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in a second appeal by overturning the lower courts' concurrent finding of fact without any genuine substantial question of law. The High Court's judgment was set aside and the trial court's dismissal of the suit was restored; the appeal was allowed.
A legal protection given to tenants/under-raiyats against being forced to give up their land rights cannot be sidestepped merely by describing them differently on paper in a sale deed, and a High Court cannot overturn matching findings of two lower courts in a second appeal unless a genuine, substantial question of law is actually involved.
