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 moreA family that had long lived in a house next to the Sri Ram Mandir in Jagtial claimed ownership of that house and certain movable properties, denying they belonged to the temple, after the Deputy Commissioner of Endowments declared the properties temple assets. The temple's Board of Trustees resisted, arguing the family were merely hereditary priests (pujaris) occupying the premises as custodians, not owners, and that an earlier 1970s proceeding had already found the property belonged to the temple. The trial court dismissed the family's suit for lack of proof of title, but the High Court reversed and decreed the suit in the family's favour based mainly on entries in the temple's own "Book of Endowments" showing the house as a boundary marker.
The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving ownership rested on the plaintiffs (the family) and that municipal tax receipts and permissions, while evidence of possession, cannot by themselves establish legal title. It found the family's evidence self-contradictory (giving inconsistent accounts of when and how the house was built) and that the High Court had wrongly decreed the suit based solely on an endowments-register entry meant only to mark temple boundaries, without properly weighing the Board's evidence, including an earlier 1976 finding that the property was temple-owned. The Court therefore set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the trial court's order dismissing the family's suit.
Living in and paying municipal taxes on a property, or having your name appear in incidental records, does not by itself prove legal ownership: the person claiming title bears the burden of proving it with sound, consistent evidence.
