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 respondent-plaintiff had bought land through a chain of registered sale deeds traced back to a former Raja's estate and built a house on it, then sued the Jharkhand State Housing Board for a permanent injunction after it threatened to dispossess him. The Board claimed the land had instead been compulsorily acquired by the government in 1965 and that possession had already passed to it. The trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court had all ruled concurrently in the plaintiff's favour, holding a suit for bare injunction (without seeking a declaration of title) was maintainable since he had proved possession.
The Supreme Court (in a judgment covering this appeal and a companion appeal, Civil Appeal No. 8242 of 2009, involving the same Board and a similarly-situated purchaser) held that a suit for mere injunction cannot be maintained where the defendant raises a genuine, substantial dispute over the plaintiff's title: here, the Board's land-acquisition claim and possession certificate were enough to cast a real "cloud" over the plaintiff's title. Since the lower courts had wrongly entertained a bare-injunction suit instead of requiring the plaintiff to seek a declaration of title, the Court set aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below and allowed the appeal. However, recognizing the long pendency of the litigation, it directed the parties to maintain status quo as to possession for three months so the plaintiff could pursue the correct remedy (a suit for declaration of title) if he wished.
If a defendant genuinely disputes your ownership of property (not just your possession), a lawsuit asking only for an injunction is not enough: you must also formally ask the court to declare your title; otherwise, even a sympathetic lower-court win can be overturned on appeal purely on this procedural ground.
