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 dispute concerned who had the right to be mutawalli (manager/trustee) of the Andrott Jumah Mosque, a public waqf in Lakshadweep. The respondents, members of the Pattakal family, claimed a customary hereditary right to the office as descendants of the mosque's original founder, Saint Ubaidulla, with the family choosing the mutawalli from among themselves. The appellants, including members of a different family claiming to be the mosque's khateebs (sermon-givers) and others claiming to represent Andrott Island residents, disputed this, arguing the mosque had historically been administered by local committees and elected representatives rather than one family. The Kerala High Court had ruled in favour of the Pattakal family's customary claim, prompting these appeals to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Pattakal family had, through clear and consistent historical evidence, established a continuous and invariable practice of the mutawalli office devolving within their family since the mosque's founding, satisfying the legal requirements for proving a customary right of hereditary succession to a religious office. The Court clarified that such a hereditary customary right does not make the office immune from oversight: even a mutawalli from the founder's family can be removed for mismanagement, and the Waqf Act's safeguards continue to apply regardless of who holds the position. Finding the customary practice neither unreasonable nor contrary to public policy, the Court upheld the High Court's judgment and dismissed all three connected appeals, confirming the Pattakal family's customary right to the office.
A long-standing, consistently followed family custom regarding who manages a religious trust (like a mosque's mutawalli) can be legally recognised and enforced by courts, but recognition of such a hereditary custom does not exempt the office-holder from removal or accountability for mismanagement under the governing law (here, the Waqf Act).
