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 appellants claimed ownership of a plot of land in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, asserting it was their ancestral property held by their family for over 50 years, and sued the Union of India (which they alleged had entered the land to remove fencing, shops, and crops) for a declaration of title and injunction. The trial court ruled in the appellants' favour, but the High Court of Madhya Pradesh reversed this on appeal and dismissed the suit, also rejecting the appellants' attempt to introduce additional evidence (land register entries) at the appellate stage, and later dismissed their review petition too. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a party who wishes to place additional evidence before an appellate court under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC must show it could not have been produced at the trial stage with due diligence. It is not a mechanism to plug gaps in a case that was fundamentally weak from the outset. It found that the government's title traced clearly to a 1953 vesting decision and a 1954 Gazette notification, while the appellants never produced any actual title documents to substantiate their claim, and had never even pleaded adverse possession, only lawful title through inheritance. The Court noted with disapproval the suspicious circumstances surrounding an earlier decree obtained by the appellants' predecessors without impleading the true owners, and the appellant's own proximity to government revenue offices at the relevant time. Finding no infirmity in the High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgments and dismissed the appeals.
A litigant who claims land ownership through inheritance must prove it with cogent title evidence at trial. Courts will not allow new evidence to be introduced only at the appeal stage to rescue a claim that was legally deficient from the start, especially where the circumstances suggest the original claim itself was not made in good faith.
