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 appellant, who held agricultural land in excess of the ceiling prescribed under the Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973, sold part of that land to the respondents in 1975 while his ceiling-surplus declaration was pending before the statutory Tribunal. The Tribunal later held in 1976 that this sale was void because it was made after the Act came into force, in violation of Section 7(2) read with Section 17, and directed the appellant to surrender the excess land to the State. Over two decades later, in 1998, the appellant filed a civil suit for a permanent injunction claiming exclusive ownership of the same land against the respondents (who were in possession), and the trial court decreed in his favour; the Andhra Pradesh High Court reversed that decree on appeal, leading to this further appeal before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that since the Tribunal had already declared the 1975 sale deed void under the ceiling law, the appellant could not maintain a civil suit for injunction asserting ownership over the same land against the respondents: his title claim could not override the binding statutory finding of the Tribunal. Distinguishing the precedents cited by the appellant's counsel as inapplicable to the facts, the Court upheld the High Court's reversal of the trial court's decree and dismissed the appeal. It further directed the ceiling Tribunal to take up the appellant's case again and pass appropriate consequential orders (in light of its 1976 order) and take remedial steps regarding the land, noting that the State had remained unaware of this two-decade-long private litigation over land that legally belonged to it under the ceiling law.
A sale transaction declared void by a competent statutory authority (such as a Land Ceiling Tribunal) cannot later be resurrected through a private civil suit for injunction or declaration of title: the statutory finding binds the parties, and litigants cannot use prolonged private litigation to circumvent land-reform ceiling laws without the State being made a party.
