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 moreDr. Hira Singh left a will under which his daughter, Shiv Dev Kaur, received only a life interest in a family property in Ludhiana, with the property reverting fully to her brother's line after her death. During her lifetime, Shiv Dev Kaur rented out a shop on the property to the respondent. After her death in 1998, the appellants (the brother's descendants, now full owners) sued to evict the tenant, arguing he was merely a trespasser once the life estate ended. The trial court and first appellate court ruled for the owners, but the High Court reversed, holding the tenancy survived and could only be ended through rent-control eviction proceedings, not a plain possession suit.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view and dismissed the owners' appeal. It held that Shiv Dev Kaur, as a life-estate holder entitled to use the property's rental income, qualified as a "landlord" under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 1949, and the tenant she inducted acquired the protected status of a "statutory tenant." That statutory protection, created by legislation, does not automatically lapse merely because the life estate itself ends on the landlord's death. The Court reasoned that once a valid tenancy is covered by rent-control law, the tenant cannot be treated as a trespasser and evicted through an ordinary possession suit: the owner's only remedy is to pursue eviction under the specific grounds listed in the Rent Restriction Act.
A tenant lawfully inducted by a life-estate holder does not automatically lose protection when that life estate ends; owners seeking to recover such property must use the eviction procedure under the applicable rent-control law rather than filing a straightforward suit for possession.
