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 concerns a long-running dispute over control of St. Mary's Church, Kattachira, between the Metropolitan of the Quilon Diocese of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church (and the Vicar he appointed) on one side, and the Parishioners of the church on the other. The Metropolitan claimed exclusive authority to conduct religious services and manage the church and its properties based on a 1972 gift deed and the Church's 1934 Constitution, while the Parishioners argued the church was independently managed by their own committee and governed by a separate 1959 document. The trial court ruled for the Metropolitan, but Kerala High Court's Division Bench reversed this, holding that the Parishioners controlled the church despite the Metropolitan holding formal title.
The Supreme Court held that this specific church dispute was governed by established Supreme Court precedent on the broader Malankara Church controversy, particularly the Constitution Bench ruling in Moram Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Thukalan Paulo Avira, the three-judge ruling in P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma, and the more recent K.S. Varghese case, all of which established that the 1934 Constitution validly governs all parish churches of the Malankara Church, that the Metropolitan (and the hierarchy appointed under that Constitution) has the power to appoint Vicars and priests, and that parishioners cannot set up a rival administration outside that Constitution. Applying these binding precedents to the facts and documentary evidence (the 1972 gift deed and records showing the Metropolitan historically appointed priests and received dues), the Court found the High Court's Division Bench ruling directly contrary to this settled law. It therefore set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the Metropolitan's appeals, restoring his authority over the church.
Once the Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the governing legal framework for a religious institution's administration (here, that the Malankara Church's 1934 Constitution binds all its parish churches), individual local disputes about management of a particular church are decided by applying that settled framework, not by reopening the underlying constitutional question each time.
