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 landlord sued to evict a tenant from a small shop in Morena, Madhya Pradesh, under Section 12(1)(f) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961, claiming he genuinely needed the shop to start his son's business. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the son was already running a utensils business and so the claim wasn't genuine, but the first appellate court and then the High Court reversed this, holding the landlord's requirement was in fact bona fide as of the date the suit was filed in 1992. The tenant appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court held that bona fide requirement under Section 12(1)(f) must be assessed as of the date the eviction suit was filed, and the tenant's documents (bills, insurance papers, a ration card) showing the son's business activity all dated from years after 1992, so they did not disprove the landlord's need at the relevant time. The Court also rejected the tenant's argument that the landlord's subsequent recovery of an adjoining shop from another tenant gave him an alternative premises, finding that shop was earmarked for a different son's separate business needs. Since the lower courts had concurrently found the bona fide requirement genuinely established, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with those findings of fact and dismissed the appeal, while granting the tenant three months to vacate.
In eviction suits based on a landlord's "bona fide requirement," courts assess that need as it existed on the date the suit was filed: a tenant cannot defeat the claim merely by pointing to the landlord's family members having had some other business activity at a later point in time, and concurrent factual findings by lower courts are rarely disturbed on further appeal.
