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 appellant and his mother claimed ownership of a parcel of land in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, purchased via a 1941 registered sale deed, on which temples, dargahs, and public utility works had allegedly encroached. After earlier rounds of litigation, the appellant filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of title, injunction, and recovery of possession; the Trial Court partly decreed in his favour on ownership but rejected his claim for alternate land. On the appellant's own appeal, the High Court went further and dismissed the entire suit, including the finding that he owned the land, holding he had failed to prove title because he never examined the person who sold him the land.
The Supreme Court held that even if the High Court's view on the gap in proof was correct, it was wrong to simply dismiss the suit outright, especially since the defendants had never even challenged the part of the decree favourable to the appellant, meaning the appellate court effectively worsened the position of the very party who had filed the appeal. Instead, the High Court should have given the appellant a chance to lead further evidence by remanding the matter to the Trial Court under Order 41 Rule 23A CPC. The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside both the High Court's judgment and the Trial Court's earlier decree, and remanded the entire suit to the Trial Court for a fresh trial on merits, with liberty to both sides to amend pleadings and lead additional evidence. It also directed the Trial Court, since the State and local bodies were parties, to first attempt a settlement under Order 27 Rule 5B CPC before deciding the suit afresh.
An appellate court cannot dismiss a litigant's own suit outright on a technical evidentiary gap, especially one the other side never challenged, without giving that litigant a fair chance to fill the gap through a retrial; courts are also expected to actively explore settlement before fully litigating suits against the government.
