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 moreTwo sets of litigants filed separate civil suits in Haryana seeking a declaration that a 1978 order of the Prescribed Authority (passed under the state's land ceiling law) affecting certain disputed land was null and void. One suit was dismissed and the other decreed by trial courts, and after conflicting appellate outcomes, the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed one second appeal and allowed the other, prompting cross-appeals to the Supreme Court by the plaintiffs of both suits.
The Supreme Court held that Section 26 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act expressly bars civil courts from examining the legality of orders passed by authorities under that Act, and that the plaintiffs' only remedy against the Prescribed Authority's order was the statutory appeal/revision process under Section 18 of the Act, not an ordinary civil suit. Since both suits had directly sought to challenge the validity of the Prescribed Authority's order, the Court found they were barred by Section 26, agreeing with the High Court's reasoning and citing the settled principle from Dhulabhai vs. State of M.P. on when civil court jurisdiction is impliedly or expressly excluded. The appeals were accordingly dismissed as devoid of merit.
When a special law creates its own appellate/revisional remedy and expressly bars civil courts from examining orders passed under it, litigants must pursue that statutory remedy rather than filing an ordinary civil suit, even if they believe the original order was legally incorrect.
