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 moreThis case involved a decades-long family and tenancy dispute over agricultural land in Karnataka. The original tenant, Gutya, had executed a will bequeathing his tenancy rights to his brother Timma, since Gutya's wife had left him, remarried someone else, and had children from that second marriage. Timma's son (the appellant) sought occupancy rights over the land based on this will and continuous cultivation, but the Land Tribunal, the Appellate Authority, and ultimately the Karnataka High Court rejected the claim, partly by wrongly treating Gutya's estranged wife as his legal heir.
The Supreme Court held that a civil suit between the same parties had already conclusively and finally established that Gutya's wife had forfeited her status as heir by remarrying, and that Timma, as Gutya's brother, was the rightful successor and in possession of the land; these findings had attained finality up to the Supreme Court's own earlier dismissal of a special leave petition. The Court held that a will bequeathing tenancy rights is valid under the relevant land reform statutes so long as the legatee is related to the deceased tenant by legitimate kinship (as a brother is), and therefore Timma's will was legally sound. The High Court had wrongly ignored these binding civil court findings and had also been overly technical in dismissing the appellant's case over an out-of-context statement and procedural defaults. The Supreme Court set aside all the lower orders and directed the Land Tribunal to formally grant occupancy rights to the appellant's successors.
Findings conclusively established in an earlier civil suit between the same parties are binding and cannot be reopened or brushed aside by a different authority later, and a tenant's inheritance rights validly bequeathed by will to a close blood relative cannot be defeated on technical or out-of-context grounds.
