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, Basheera Khanum, claimed she had purchased Plot No. 394 at a municipal auction in 1977 and had a valid sale certificate, while respondent No. 2 had separately purchased the adjoining Plot No. 395, but a clerical error in respondent No. 2's 1988 sale deed wrongly described his plot as No. 394. After the City Municipal Council itself corrected this error by resolution in 1992 (confirming Basheera Khanum's plot as 394), respondent No. 2 later colluded with the Council to pass a fresh resolution in 1993 purporting to cancel her sale deed and reassign Plot No. 394 to him. She sued for declaration and injunction; the trial court and first appellate court both ruled in her favour, but the High Court, in second appeal, reversed and held she had failed to prove her title.
The Supreme Court restored the trial court's decree and reversed the High Court, holding that the High Court's finding that the appellant failed to discharge her burden of proof was "recorded in sheer ignorance of the evidence on record and is absolutely perverse." It held that certified copies of municipal records, admissible under Section 376 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, together with money receipts and the Council's own 1992 rectification resolution, overwhelmingly proved her purchase of Plot No. 394. The Council's failure to produce the original auction records despite a court direction rightly invited an adverse inference against it. The Court also held that a valid registered sale certificate cannot be annulled merely by a municipal board resolution: such action requires a proper civil suit, and the Council's 1993 resolution attempting to do so was "grossly illegal and high-handed."
A government or municipal body cannot informally cancel someone's registered title by simply passing an internal resolution, undoing a valid, registered property document requires due process through a court of law, and public bodies bear a heavy burden to produce their own records when a citizen's documented title is challenged.
