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 appellants were trustees of a temple trust that had owned agricultural land classified as "Devasthan Inam" land since before independence, which had over time been let out to tenant farmers (the respondents' forefathers). The respondents claimed to have become statutory deemed purchasers of the land on "Tillers' Day" (1 April 1957) under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, but the trustees argued the land was exempt from this tenancy-purchase scheme under Section 88B because it belonged to a registered public religious trust. The Bombay High Court ruled in favour of the tenants, directing authorities to fix the purchase price, and the trustees appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that while the trust was validly registered as a public trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, that registration only took effect prospectively from 1984: decades after the respondents' statutory right to purchase the land had already vested on Tillers' Day in 1957. The Court held that the exemption under Section 88B applies only to trusts that were already registered (or deemed registered under specific scheduled enactments) at the relevant time, and there was no provision deeming this trust registered earlier merely because it was a public religious trust in substance. Since the tenants' right to be deemed purchasers had already accrued before the trust's registration, it could not be retroactively defeated, and the Court affirmed the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal.
A statutory tenant's right to purchase agricultural land that vested on the prescribed cut-off date cannot be undone by a trust's later registration as a religious/public trust: exemptions under tenancy law apply only from the date registration actually takes effect, not retroactively.
