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 appellant claimed "khatedari" (tenant-occupant) rights over about 158.3 bighas of land, inherited from his father, and sought recovery of land he alleged had been encroached upon based on a fabricated sale deed. A revenue court decreed the suit in his favour in 1975 after declaring the original defendant, Keshi, ex-parte for non-appearance; her appeal, filed decades later in 2006, was rejected for gross delay but the Board of Revenue and later the High Court still remanded the matter, finding she may not have been given a fair opportunity to defend as an illiterate widow. The appellant challenged this remand before the Supreme Court, arguing the defendant had in fact actively participated in the original trial through a lawyer and witnesses.
The Supreme Court found that the trial court record showed the defendant had appeared through counsel, led defence evidence by examining two witnesses, and was only declared ex-parte after failing to appear following specific notice, undermining the claim that she was denied a fair hearing. The Court held that condonation of a 31-year delay in challenging the 1975 decree could not be treated as an act of generosity that defeats substantial justice, especially since the defendant's own claimed sale deed (from a vendor stated to be a 12-year-old minor, requiring court permission never obtained) and a later 2005 sale deed both failed to establish valid title. Finding the remand ordered by the High Court and Board of Revenue to be illegal, the Court set aside those orders and restored the original 1975 Revenue Court decree in the appellant's favour. The appeal was allowed.
Courts will not condone decades-long delays in challenging a decree, and a party cannot rely on sympathetic circumstances (such as claimed lack of opportunity to defend) if the trial record itself shows meaningful participation: title claims must also be backed by properly executed and verified sale deeds, especially where a minor's property is involved.
