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 dispute concerned a three-storeyed house in Almora, Uttarakhand, with a title history stretching back to 1872 involving multiple mortgages, inheritances, and sales. The appellant's predecessor, Lalta Prasad Tamta, had progressively acquired full ownership of the property by redeeming mortgaged shares and purchasing other co-owners' shares, and later sold it to the appellant, Mohan Chandra Tamta, who sued for possession against tenants occupying part of the house. The tenants (defendants) denied the appellant's ownership, claiming instead that a third party, Mustaffa Shah Khan, was the true mortgagee/owner, though that third party himself never appealed the trial court's contrary finding.
The trial court had decreed the suit in the plaintiff's favour, finding him full owner after redemption of all mortgaged shares, but the High Court (on a tenant's appeal) held the plaintiff owned only 3/4th of the property and that the tenants were not liable to be evicted since they were allegedly tenants of the third party. The Supreme Court held this was a grave error: since the alleged mortgagee/owner (defendant no.3) himself never challenged the trial court's finding that he had no remaining share, mere tenants with no ownership claim of their own could not be permitted to re-litigate that ownership finding on his behalf. The Court therefore set aside the High Court's 2009 judgment and restored the trial court's 1975 decree in the plaintiff's favour, disposing of the appeal with no order as to costs.
A party who is only a tenant (with no ownership stake of their own) generally cannot challenge a court's finding on who owns the property if the actual rival claimant to title chose not to appeal that finding himself.
