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 plaintiff sued for a perpetual injunction to prevent the defendants from dispossessing him of land he claimed to have inherited from his deceased brother, Bhagwan Singh. The defendants claimed Bhagwan Singh had willed his share of the land to them; the plaintiff alleged the will was forged and that the defendants had in fact murdered Bhagwan Singh by poisoning (for which they were prosecuted). The Trial Court ruled for the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court reversed and dismissed the suit after re-examining the evidence, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a Second Appeal, restored the Trial Court's decree in the plaintiff's favour, prompting the defendants' appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the First Appellate Court's dismissal of the suit, holding that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A Second Appeal to the High Court is strictly confined to substantial questions of law; it is not an occasion for the High Court to re-appreciate evidence and overturn findings of fact reached by the First Appellate Court, provided that Court exercised its discretion judicially. Since the High Court here had effectively re-heard the matter as if it were a first appeal rather than confining itself to a substantial question of law, its judgment could not stand. The Court closed by formally reminding High Courts generally of this limitation, citing repeated instances of Section 100 being misused to disturb concurrent or appellate findings of fact.
A High Court hearing a Second Appeal can only intervene on a genuine substantial question of law: it cannot re-weigh evidence or overturn factual findings simply because it would have decided the case differently, and litigants should not expect a "third round" of fact-finding at that stage.
