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 moreJanabai, an elected member of Gram Panchayat Kalamba (Mahali) in Maharashtra, was disqualified under Section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act, 1958 on the ground that government land had been encroached upon by her father-in-law and husband since 1981, and that she continued to use that land. Authorities below and the Bombay High Court upheld the disqualification, but Janabai argued that the provision only disqualifies the actual encroacher, not a family member who merely benefits from someone else's encroachment, relying on an earlier two-judge Supreme Court ruling (Sagar Pandurang Dhundare) that had taken that narrower view.
The Supreme Court examined conflicting Bombay High Court rulings on whether "person" in Section 14(1)(j-3) covers only the original encroacher or also those who knowingly continue to occupy encroached land as legal heirs or family members. It held that construing "person" so narrowly would let the mischief continue indefinitely, since family members could simply keep living on encroached land while being shielded from disqualification merely because a relative made the original encroachment. The Court held that continued occupation of encroached government land by a member's family amounts to a continuing act of encroachment that creates the very conflict of interest the provision was meant to prevent, and on that basis expressly overruled its own earlier decision in Sagar Pandurang Dhundare as not laying down the correct law. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding Janabai's disqualification.
An elected local representative cannot shield themselves from disqualification for encroachment on government land simply by pointing out that a family member made the original encroachment, continuing to live on or benefit from that encroached land is itself treated as a continuing act of encroachment.
