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's family land was covered by a 2003-2004 acquisition notification issued by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), while several neighbouring, similarly-placed plots were excluded from acquisition after a court-ordered exemption process. The appellant, whose father originally litigated the matter, made repeated applications and went through multiple rounds of litigation over nearly two decades trying to get his land excluded on the same basis as the neighbouring plots, including proving he had structures on the land before the notification. A single judge of the Karnataka High Court eventually ruled in his favour, but a Division Bench reversed that decision, relying on a late affidavit filed by the BDA that the appellant was never given a chance to respond to.
The Supreme Court found that the Division Bench had violated basic principles of natural justice by accepting a fresh affidavit from the BDA and closing the hearing on the very same day, without giving the appellant any opportunity to respond to it. Because the well-reasoned order of the Single Judge was reversed based on evidence the appellant never got to contest, the Supreme Court held this alone was enough to set aside the Division Bench's judgment. The matter was sent back to the High Court's Division Bench to be reconsidered afresh, with a direction to maintain the status quo on the land in the meantime.
No court can decide a case against a party based on evidence introduced at the last moment without giving that party a real chance to respond: a fair hearing on both sides is a non-negotiable requirement, even in long-running land disputes.
