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 respondents claimed entitlement to restoration of land that the State had declined to return, treating it as "ecologically fragile land" vested in the Government under the Kerala Forest (Vesting and Management of Ecologically Fragile Lands) Act, 2003. An earlier High Court writ-appeal judgment had merely observed that any restoration order would be subject to the State's rights under the Act, but a later Division Bench order in a contempt proceeding found the appellants guilty of contempt for not restoring the land and framed a formal contempt charge against them, prompting this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that, since the earlier writ-appeal judgment itself recognized the State's right to proceed under the 2003 Act, the appellants could not be said to have committed any contempt merely by taking steps under that Act instead of restoring the land outright. The Court found that the real, substantive question, whether the disputed land actually qualifies as "ecologically fragile land", falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal specially constituted under Section 9 of the Act, not the writ/contempt court. It therefore set aside the contempt order dated 17.10.2007 and disposed of both appeals, granting the respondents liberty to pursue the statutory dispute-resolution remedy under Section 10 of the Act before that Tribunal within 60 days, with a request that the Tribunal decide the matter within a year, expressly leaving all contentions on the merits open for the Tribunal to decide.
A person or authority cannot be held in contempt of court for following a specific statutory procedure that the court's own earlier order had already acknowledged as available; specialised factual disputes (like whether land is "ecologically fragile") belong before the tribunal the law specifically creates for that purpose, not in a contempt proceeding.
