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 moreLand in a Hardoi (Uttar Pradesh) village was originally recorded as "Category-6" (barren/non-agricultural, including pasture and khalihan land) in the revenue records. In 1992, based on reports from local revenue officials, the Sub-Divisional Officer reclassified it as "Category-5" (cultivable land), and pattas (leases) were subsequently granted to the appellant and 67 others, who took possession and were later allotted "chaks" (consolidated plots) during land consolidation proceedings. Decades later, a consolidator's report found the land had actually always been public utility land, pasture and khalihan, for which pattas could never lawfully be granted under Section 132 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and recommended the appellant's name be removed from the records; the State and the Land Management Committee then sought cancellation of the pattas, which the consolidation authorities and the courts below upheld.
The Supreme Court held that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no legal authority to reclassify the land's category from Category-6 to Category-5 in the first place: the revenue manual provision relied upon only empowers changes to the tenure-holder's "khata" classification, not the fundamental category of the land itself, and only the State Government (under specific statutory provisions with safeguards) can authorize such conversions of public utility land. Since the re-categorisation was without jurisdiction, the land legally remained public utility land at all times, meaning no bhumidhari (ownership) rights could ever accrue on it, and the pattas granted to the appellant were void from the outset. The Court also rejected the appellant's argument that the cancellation proceedings were barred by res judicata, holding that an earlier 1994 proceeding had been dismissed only for lack of evidence that the pattas were even executed, not on the merits of their validity, so no issue had actually been conclusively decided earlier. Relying on precedent (Hinch Lal Tiwari and Jagpal Singh) protecting community resources like ponds and pastures from private diversion, the Court dismissed the appeal, finding no illegality in the High Court/consolidation authorities' rulings.
Land officially recorded as village common or public utility land (pastures, ponds, grazing grounds) cannot be converted to private ownership through administrative shortcuts, and any lease or patta granted over such land through an unauthorized re-categorisation is void from the start: possession or record entries built on that foundation, however long-standing, offer no legal protection.
