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 moreResidents of Gopanpally village in Ranga Reddy district (Andhra Pradesh/Telangana) held land recorded in their predecessors' names in the 1954-55 "Khasra Pahani" (revenue record), which they had purchased under registered sale deeds and had been paying land revenue on since 1954. In 1991, the Government reserved a large tract of this land (including the petitioners' parcels) for house-sites for government employees, and in 2004, roughly 50 years after the original entries, issued a notice seeking to cancel those entries as fraudulent. The landholders challenged the notice, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court (Single Judge and Division Bench) ruled in their favour.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Government's appeals, holding that even where a statute prescribes no limitation period for exercising a revisional/corrective power (here, Section 166B of the A.P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act), such power must still be exercised within a "reasonable time." The Court found the Government had every opportunity to verify the revenue entries as early as 1991, and gave no explanation for the roughly 13-50 year delay in acting. Since the notice did not even state when the alleged fraud was discovered, the exercise of revisional power so long after the fact was arbitrary and could not be sustained, though the Court clarified it was not ruling on the merits of the fraud allegation itself and left the State free to pursue other lawful remedies.
Even when a law does not fix a time limit for a government authority to revisit or correct its own records, that power cannot be used after an unreasonably long and unexplained delay: citizens who have relied on official records and paid dues accordingly for decades gain a strong claim to finality and security of title.
