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 moreAnima Bose, who owned a plot of land in Baripada, Odisha, executed a registered 99-year "lease deed" in 1998 in favour of Vivekananda Kendra so it could run a spiritual/service centre on the property, at a rent of Rs.1,000 per year, while she continued to occupy the first floor herself. In 2003 she unilaterally cancelled the lease, the Kendra's workers were forcibly dispossessed in 2005, and the property was then sold to Pradeep Kumar Agarwalla and another buyer in 2006, while the Kendra's civil suit challenging the cancellation was already pending in court. The trial court and first appellate court both ruled in the Kendra's favour, holding the cancellation illegal and the later sale void as against the Kendra's lease rights, but the Orissa High Court, in second appeal, reversed this by holding that the 1998 document was really only a licence (not a lease) and so created no enforceable leasehold interest that could defeat the sale.
The Supreme Court held that the 1998 deed was, on its plain and literal wording, unmistakably a lease and not a mere licence. It used clear language of "demise," specified a 99-year term and fixed rent, and gave the Kendra the right to construct and use the property, which are hallmarks of a leasehold interest under Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act rather than a licence under Section 52 of the Indian Easements Act. The Court held that Anima Bose's continued occupation of the first floor did not undermine this, since exclusive possession is assessed with respect to the demised portion only, and cautioned that courts should be far more restrained in inferring intention from parties' conduct after execution of a document than from the document's own clear text. Applying established principles of contract construction (from Associated Hotels of India v. R.N. Kapoor and other precedents), it found no valid ground under the Registration Act to unilaterally cancel a registered lease, and therefore held the cancellation illegal. It set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the reliefs granted by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court in favour of the Kendra as lessee, holding that the purchasers (as vendees from the lessor) could only enjoy rights subject to the lease that remained protected in the Kendra's favour.
Whether a document is a "lease" or merely a "licence" is decided by its actual wording and substance, not its title, and a property owner cannot unilaterally cancel a validly registered long-term lease; any buyer who purchases property while litigation over such rights is pending (lis pendens) takes it subject to the outcome of that litigation.
