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 landlord sought eviction of his tenants in 1974 on the ground that they had made unauthorised permanent construction/material alteration to the rented plot, changing a vacant plot into a shop and godown. Both the trial court (1989) and the first appellate court (2000) found as a fact, after reviewing the evidence, that the tenants had indeed made such structural changes without the landlord's consent, and ruled in the landlord's favour. However, in a second appeal, the Rajasthan High Court reversed these concurrent findings of fact and ruled in the tenants' favour, prompting the landlord to appeal to the Supreme Court after more than 40 years of litigation.
The Supreme Court held that a High Court exercising second appellate jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure can only interfere with concurrent findings of fact from the trial and first appellate courts if those findings are "perverse", i.e., arrived at by ignoring relevant evidence, relying on irrelevant material, or so unreasonable that no rational person could reach them. The Court found that the trial court's and first appellate court's findings here were reasonable and well-supported by evidence, and that the High Court's attempt to reach a different conclusion was "wholly wrong, if not, perverse" and impermissible in a second appeal confined to questions of law. It therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the eviction decree, while granting the tenants time until 31 March 2017 to vacate on condition they pay use-and-occupation charges and furnish an undertaking, failing which the decree would become immediately executable.
A High Court cannot re-decide questions of fact that two lower courts have already agreed upon just because it would have assessed the evidence differently: in a second appeal, it may interfere only when the lower courts' factual findings are genuinely perverse (unsupported by evidence or irrational), not merely debatable.
