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 moreKalpana Vyas, a landlady, sought eviction of her tenant Raj Kumar Rangwani on the ground of her bona fide personal need: to build additional construction for her children and for guests. The Rent Tribunal initially dismissed her eviction petition, reasoning she had an alternative accommodation available. On appeal, the Rent Appellate Tribunal reversed this and granted the eviction decree in her favour, but the tenant then challenged that in the Rajasthan High Court, which restored the original Tribunal order dismissing the eviction, leading the landlady to approach the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court, while exercising limited writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, could not act as an appellate court and simply re-examine and restore the Tribunal's factual findings; instead, if it found fault with the Appellate Tribunal's approach, it should have remanded the case back to the Appellate Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits. Since the High Court had committed this error and no court had properly recorded a factual finding on the bona fide need, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and sent the case back to the Rent Appellate Tribunal to decide the eviction appeal afresh on its merits within six months.
A High Court exercising writ/supervisory jurisdiction over a tribunal's decision generally cannot re-weigh disputed facts itself; if it disagrees with how a tribunal handled an appeal, the correct course is usually to send the matter back for a fresh decision rather than directly restoring the lower authority's order.
