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 had purchased a plot of land measuring about 852⅓ square yards by a 1978 sale deed and sued the appellant for declaration of title and possession, alleging the appellant had taken forcible possession of the land. The trial court decreed the suit in the respondent's favour, but the First Appellate Court reversed this after a Local Commissioner's report showed the respondent was actually in possession of a larger area (955 square yards) than she had purchased, and found other irregularities (missing consolidation records, no boundary marker). The High Court, in a second appeal, reversed the First Appellate Court again and restored the decree in the respondent's favour.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in reversing the First Appellate Court, because the First Appellate Court's findings were properly based on an unchallenged Local Commissioner's report and supporting evidence, and the oral testimony relied on by the respondent did not actually establish the claimed encroachment. Crucially, the Court held that the "substantial question of law" the High Court had framed to justify hearing the second appeal was not a real question of law at all, but simply a disputed question of fact, something a second appeal is not meant to re-open. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the First Appellate Court's dismissal of the suit.
A second appeal to a High Court is strictly limited to genuine questions of law: if the real dispute is just about facts (like how much land someone actually possesses), the High Court cannot use the second-appeal route to re-decide that, however the question is dressed up.
