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 legal heirs of Mr. Francis Paul Martins, a monthly tenant of two rooms in a Mumbai building, filed a 1994 eviction suit against a sub-tenant family (predecessors of the respondents) claiming they bonafide needed one of the rooms for the tenant's elderly widow and her visiting daughters. The Trial Court decreed eviction in 2001, but the first Appellate Court reversed it after the widow-plaintiff died, holding the bonafide need no longer survived. When the plaintiffs challenged this reversal before the Bombay High Court, the defendants filed an affidavit stating the plaintiffs' other room was not being used by them and was occupied by other persons, but the plaintiffs never filed a reply; the High Court dismissed the writ petition largely on this ground of non-response.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in dismissing the writ petition solely because the plaintiffs did not file a rejoinder to the 2023 affidavit, all material on record, including that affidavit, ought to have been examined on merits before the plaintiffs' claim of bonafide need could be rejected. Relying on precedent (including Maganlal v. Nanasaheb and Pratap Rai Tanwani v. Uttam Chand), the Court reiterated that bonafide need is ordinarily assessed as of the date the eviction suit was filed, and subsequent events are relevant only if they materially and substantially undercut that need: a question the High Court never properly considered. The Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter to the Small Causes Court, Mumbai, permitting both sides to amend pleadings and lead further evidence, directing the case be decided afresh within a year, without expressing any opinion on the merits.
A court cannot dismiss a party's case merely for failing to respond to a new affidavit filed by the opposite side. It must still weigh that material along with everything else on record before deciding a case; and in tenancy disputes, bonafide need is normally judged as of the date the eviction case was filed, not automatically defeated by later developments unless those developments genuinely destroy the need claimed.
