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 moreAn elderly man, Rameshwar, gifted his agricultural land to his great-grandchildren, allegedly to keep it out of the hands of his sons and grandson whom he considered unreliable. His son Arjun and daughter Jinku filed a civil suit challenging the gift deed, claiming a share in what they said was ancestral joint family property. The Trial Court rejected the plaint (refused to even proceed with the suit), reasoning that the dispute involved "khatedari" (tenancy) rights that could only be decided by the Revenue Court under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, and the High Court upheld that rejection.
The Supreme Court held that under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, when a question of tenancy/khatedari rights arises in a civil suit, the correct procedure is for the Civil Court to frame that specific issue and refer it to the Revenue Court for decision, not to reject the entire plaint outright. It noted that a related suit on the tenancy question was already pending before the Revenue Court (Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikar), a fact the Trial Court and High Court had overlooked. The Court therefore set aside both the High Court's and Trial Court's orders, restored the civil suit challenging the gift deed, and directed that it be kept pending until the Revenue Court's suit on khatedari rights is decided, after which the civil suit can resume. It expressly clarified that it had not decided the merits of either the khatedari rights or the validity of the gift deed itself.
A civil court cannot simply throw out an entire lawsuit merely because it touches on a tenancy/revenue-rights question outside its jurisdiction: the correct approach is to frame that specific issue and refer it to the proper revenue authority while keeping the rest of the case alive, especially where a related proceeding on the jurisdictional question is already pending elsewhere.
