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 appellants' predecessors had purchased certain premises in Secunderabad in 1904, and the respondents' predecessors continued in occupation as tenants, paying monthly rent. The respondents stopped paying rent from 1987, prompting the appellants to file an eviction petition under the A.P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, for default in rent and denial of title. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition, but the first appellate court (Additional Chief Judge, Small Causes Court) reversed this and ordered eviction; the High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, then set aside the appellate court's order and restored the Rent Controller's dismissal, prompting this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court, while exercising revisional (not appellate) jurisdiction under the Rent Control Act, had wrongly reappraised the entire evidence and overturned factual findings of the first appellate court, contrary to the Constitution Bench ruling in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Dilbahar Singh, which confines revisional scrutiny to legal errors and does not permit re-weighing evidence absent perversity or an error of law. The Court found the first appellate court had correctly held that the appellants proved ownership and a landlord-tenant relationship through the 1904 sale deed, while the respondents failed to prove their claim that the transaction was a mortgage rather than an outright sale. Since the appellate court's findings did not suffer any jurisdictional error, they were binding and the High Court should not have disturbed them. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, the eviction order was restored, and the respondents were given three months to vacate subject to depositing arrears and advance rent, with Rs.5,000 costs awarded against them.
A High Court's revisional power in rent-control eviction cases is narrower than an appeal: it can correct legal or jurisdictional errors but cannot re-examine and overturn the factual findings of the first appellate court simply because it would have assessed the evidence differently.
