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 moreLand in Punjab allotted under a restricted government auction (under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act, 1976) was resold in breach of the auction's transfer restrictions. The authorities cancelled the original sale and confirmed the allotment in favour of the appellant's predecessor. The buyers from the original purchaser then sued in civil court, claiming to be bona fide purchasers and seeking to have the cancellation order declared null and void. The trial court ruled in their favour, but the first appellate court reversed this, holding the civil suit itself was barred; the High Court's Second Appeal then restored the trial court's decree in the buyers' favour, prompting this appeal by the allottee's legal heirs.
The Supreme Court held that Section 16 of the 1976 Act expressly bars civil courts from entertaining any suit or granting any injunction regarding actions taken under the Act, and makes orders passed by the competent authority final. Since the authority's 1985 order cancelling the earlier sale and confirming the appellant's allotment had become final and was never challenged before the revenue authorities, the civil court had no jurisdiction to go behind it or rule on its validity. The Court also noted that the first appellate court's separate finding, that the suit was additionally barred for want of a mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC before suing the State, had never been disturbed by the High Court. On these grounds, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the original civil suit.
Where a special statute expressly bars civil courts from entertaining disputes over matters it assigns to its own authorities, a civil suit challenging such a final administrative order is simply not maintainable: litigants must use the remedies the statute itself provides rather than approach a civil court.
