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 respondent-plaintiff, claiming to be a tenant in premises used for an eating house, pan shop and fabrication work, sued the landlord-appellant for a permanent injunction after the landlord allegedly obstructed him from carrying out repairs in 2004. The landlord contended that the tenancy had already ended in 1991, when the plaintiff vacated the premises under a settlement reached in an earlier suit. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, finding he had not proved continued possession or payment of rent since 1991, but the First Appellate Court reversed this and granted the injunction, a decision the Bombay High Court upheld.
The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act must prove actual, physical possession of the property as of the date of filing the suit: relief cannot rest on inference or presumption. It found the plaintiff had not paid rent for over fifteen years, lacked the licences and electrical connection needed to run the businesses he claimed to operate there, and that a court commissioner's report showed the premises were unfit for such business. The First Appellate Court and High Court had wrongly presumed continued possession merely from a withdrawal document in an earlier, unrelated suit, without the plaintiff discharging his burden of proof. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court's judgment, allowed the appeal, and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
To get a court injunction protecting your possession of a property, you must actually prove you were in physical possession on the date you filed the case: courts will not infer possession in your favour just because the other side's earlier, separate case was withdrawn.
