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 original plaintiffs' family had leased out land near a sugar mill in Bijnor for use as a vehicle parking area; after the lease period ended, the defendant Sugar Corporation refused to vacate, prompting a suit for eviction and arrears of rent. The trial court refused eviction but awarded arrears; the first appellate court reversed this and decreed eviction in the plaintiffs' favour, but the High Court then reversed that and dismissed the suit entirely, holding the land had vested in the State under land-reform legislation and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any compensation either. The original plaintiff died during the appeal, and his assignee (based on a later sale deed) was substituted as appellant.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 2(h)(vi) of the relevant 1971 Act, the definition of a "scheduled undertaking" includes all lands connected with the factory's operation, "including any leasehold interest therein": a phrase meant to expand, not limit, what vests in the State, so the disputed land (used for parking adjacent to the sugar mill) had indeed vested in the State Government on the appointed day. However, the Court disagreed with the High Court's separate finding that the plaintiffs were disentitled to any compensation, holding that the 1950 Act (under which the lease was supposedly void) did not even apply since the land had already been declared, before 1950, as being used for non-agricultural purposes. Having found that the land itself was validly vested in the State, the appeal (which sought eviction/possession) was dismissed, but the Court expressly left open that the landowners could pursue any other available remedy to claim the compensation they may be entitled to.
A party can lose on the central relief sought (such as possession or eviction) while the Court still corrects an unrelated, incorrect finding that would have unfairly barred them from a different remedy (here, compensation): dismissal of an appeal does not necessarily mean every finding of the lower court is approved.
