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 appellants (plaintiffs) owned land in Chikmagalur that had been laid out into plots, with a strip ('A' schedule property) earmarked for a road that was never actually built because the City Development Authority never approved it. After selling some plots to the respondents, the appellants sued for a declaration that they still owned the unused road-strip and for possession of a small encroached portion ('B' schedule property) within it. The Trial Court and first appellate court both ruled in the appellants' favour, but the Karnataka High Court, in a second appeal, partly reversed this and held the appellants were only entitled to compensation if the strip was ever formally acquired, not to a declaration of ownership.
The Supreme Court held that the Trial Court and first appellate court's findings, based on municipal tax records, a khata-mutation entry, and a Court Commissioner's site inspection report, were concurrent findings of fact showing the appellants remained the owners of the road-strip since no road was ever actually built and no acquisition or compensation had occurred. Under Section 100 CPC, a High Court sitting in second appeal cannot disturb concurrent findings of fact unless they are shown to be perverse, and the Court found the High Court had wrongly re-appreciated the evidence without any such perversity being shown. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the original decree in the appellants' favour, including the direction to hand over the encroached portion.
A High Court's power in a second appeal is narrow: it cannot re-weigh evidence and overturn concurrent factual findings of the lower courts unless those findings are legally perverse; simply disagreeing with how the facts were read is not enough.
