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 case concerned land in the Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli that was originally granted between 1923 and 1930 by the erstwhile Portuguese Government to the appellants' predecessors, on condition that the land be brought under agricultural cultivation. In 1974, the Collector, Dadra and Nagar Haveli rescinded these grants for non-cultivation under Article 12 of the "Organizacao Agraria" (a Portuguese-era land administration regulation). This set off decades of litigation; the trial court and first appellate court ruled for the appellants (landholders), but the Bombay High Court reversed those findings in second appeal in 2005, upholding the rescission. The matter reached the Supreme Court more than half a century after the original dispute arose.
The Supreme Court held that the rights in the land were governed by the Organizacao Agraria (OA), not the separate 1917 Portuguese land law the appellants invoked, and that the Bombay High Court had not exceeded its limited jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC (which restricts second appeals to genuine "substantial questions of law") in reversing the lower courts' concurrent findings. The Court rejected the appellants' arguments that the rescission order was invalid on grounds of waiver, acquiescence, delay, or impossibility of cultivation, finding the Collector's 1974 order was passed after due inquiry, correctly identified land that could have been cultivated with effort, and was not vitiated by mala fides or arbitrariness. The appeals were accordingly dismissed and the High Court's judgment upholding the rescission was affirmed, though the Court gave any appellants not yet considered for occupancy rights under a 1971 land reforms law liberty to approach the Collector afresh within six weeks.
Conditional land grants that require the grantee to actively cultivate or improve the land can be validly rescinded for non-compliance even decades later, and a High Court's power in a "second appeal" to overturn concurrent factual findings of lower courts is legitimate so long as it is based on a genuine substantial question of law. It is not automatically an overreach of jurisdiction.
