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 original plaintiff sued for a perpetual injunction (later amended to also seek recovery of possession) over agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh, claiming ownership and that the defendant, a stranger, was interfering with his possession. The defendant countered that she had held and enjoyed the land for decades after her father-in-law granted it to her in lieu of maintenance following her husband's death, and that this had ripened into full ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The trial court dismissed the suit, the first appellate court reversed and ruled for the plaintiff, and the High Court in second appeal restored the dismissal, prompting the plaintiff's legal heirs to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of the suit, agreeing that the defendant's maintenance-based possession had ripened into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. It held that a plaintiff seeking a perpetual injunction must prove actual possession at the time of filing suit, which this plaintiff failed to do, and that a claim for recovery of possession requires specific pleadings on entitlement, the manner and date of dispossession, and the nature of the defendant's possession: none of which were pleaded here. Citing precedent on the need for detailed, particularized pleadings in possession disputes, the Court found the plaint fundamentally deficient and held both reliefs were rightly denied.
In property suits, simply asserting ownership is not enough: a person seeking an injunction must prove they were actually in possession when the suit was filed, and one seeking recovery of possession must plead specific facts about how, when, and from whom possession was lost; vague or missing pleadings can sink an otherwise legitimate claim.
