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 had earlier won a permanent-injunction suit (decided finally by 1985) establishing his lawful possession over a small plot of land in Tumkur, Karnataka, that he had purchased through a chain of registered sale deeds traced back to 1928. Years later, a group of former students of a nearby government school and other local residents filed a fresh suit "in a representative capacity," seeking a declaration that the earlier decree did not bind the State and that the State was the rightful owner, asking the appellant be directed to hand the land to the government. The trial court partly ruled for the plaintiffs, the first appellate court reversed that, and the Karnataka High Court then sided with the plaintiffs again, ordering possession handed to the government - bringing the matter to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs - who were third parties never impleaded in the earlier suit between the appellant and the State - lacked the standing (locus standi) to now sue on behalf of the State to challenge a final and binding decree, especially since the State itself had lost that earlier round and could not now use others to indirectly relitigate it. The Court found that the State had never itself claimed possession or produced concrete evidence of ownership during the original 1978 suit, so third parties could not raise those same claims afresh in later proceedings. Concluding the suit itself was not legally maintainable, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, while expressly leaving the underlying question of title open for any party to pursue through proper proceedings with full evidence.
A person who was not a party to earlier litigation, and did not seek to join it, generally cannot later bring a fresh lawsuit attempting to reopen or override a final decree on behalf of someone else (like the government) who already lost and did not appeal further - standing to sue matters as much as the underlying merits.
