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 company had purchased land in Hyderabad for its manufacturing unit, but under the now-repealed Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, a portion of this land was declared "excess" and the government claimed to have taken it over. The company's case was that the government only prepared paperwork (a "panchnama") claiming symbolic possession in 2008, while it, the company, remained in actual physical possession of the land throughout. This mattered because the 1999 Repeal Act said that ceiling proceedings would lapse for any excess land where the government had not already taken actual physical possession before the repeal took effect. A single judge of the High Court had ruled in the company's favour, but a Division Bench of the same High Court later reversed that, siding with the government.
The Supreme Court held that whether "actual physical possession" was validly taken is a mixed question of law and fact that a writ court can and should examine. It is not merely a question of fact to be brushed aside. Examining the record, the Court agreed with the Single Judge that the possession the government claimed to have taken via the panchnama was not genuine physical possession, since the company continued to occupy and use the land. The Division Bench was found to have erred in overturning a well-reasoned judgment without good cause. The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's order and restored the Single Judge's ruling, meaning the land ceiling proceedings had lapsed and the land remained with the company.
When land acquisition or ceiling laws require the government to actually take "physical possession" before a citizen's property rights are extinguished, paperwork or symbolic gestures are not enough. Courts will look behind formal panchnamas to see who was really in control of the land.
