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 piece of land in Chennai was originally sold off in parts by one owner to different buyers, including the appellants' predecessors and later the plaintiff, with a shared pathway running alongside the plots. The plaintiff's own sale deed described a 16-feet-wide pathway for his "exclusive use," and he sued to stop the appellants/defendants from using it, while the defendants argued their own, earlier sale deed had already granted them a right of access over the same strip of land. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, but the first appellate court and the Madras High Court both ruled for the plaintiff, prompting the defendants' appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that because the defendants' sale deed (executed in 1976) predated the plaintiff's sale deed (executed in 1988) and already reserved a right of passage over the same strip of land, the seller had no power to later grant the plaintiff an "exclusive" right over the same pathway, relying on Section 48 of the Transfer of Property Act, which gives priority to earlier-created rights over the same property. The Court rejected the High Court's view and held that the pathway should be used in common by both the defendants and the plaintiff, rather than exclusively by the plaintiff, and allowed the appeal.
When a seller grants rights over the same piece of land (like a shared pathway) to different buyers at different times, the earlier-created right generally takes priority: a seller cannot later carve out an "exclusive" right for a subsequent buyer if an earlier buyer was already granted access over the same land.
