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 moreUnder a 1991 rent agreement, a Kolkata landlord and tenant had agreed that municipal taxes would be included in the rent and raised proportionately whenever taxes were enhanced. After a 2001 amendment to the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act made tenants directly responsible for their share of municipal tax as "occupiers," the landlord apportioned an enhanced tax bill among tenants and sought the tenant's share; when the tenant failed to pay, the landlord filed for eviction on the ground of rent default. Both the Trial Court and the Calcutta High Court ruled against the landlord, holding that any such enhancement first required a formal order from the Rent Controller.
The Supreme Court held that after the 2001 amendment inserted sub-section (8) to Section 5, the statutory obligation to pay municipal tax as an occupier overrode the original 1991 contractual mechanism, and this obligation existed independently of, and in addition to, the ordinary rent. Relying on its earlier ruling in Calcutta Gujarati Education Society, the Court held that municipal tax apportioned to a tenant is legally treated as "rent" recoverable as such, and that the tenant here had never genuinely disputed the amount or legality of the sum demanded. Since the tenant's default on this specific statutory obligation was clear, the Court held the High Court was wrong to insist on a separate Rent Controller order enhancing rent, set aside the High Court's judgment, and allowed the landlord's eviction application.
Where a tenancy statute is amended to make municipal tax a tenant's own direct statutory obligation, that liability functions as "rent" for eviction purposes regardless of what an older private rent agreement said, and a tenant who does not specifically dispute the tax amount demanded cannot resist eviction merely by pointing to the absence of a formal rent-enhancement order.
