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 plaintiff claimed possession of disputed property based on a registered 1981 sale deed executed by Buchamma, whom he claimed was the rightful heir after the death of the previous owner, Yashoda. The defendants argued that Yashoda's adopted daughter (defendant no. 3) had instead inherited the property, so Buchamma had no right to sell it. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit, the first appellate court reversed and decreed in his favour, and the High Court in second appeal reversed again, holding that the plaintiff should have filed a suit for declaration of title rather than simple possession.
The Supreme Court held that a suit for declaration of title is only necessary where the defendant's denial genuinely casts a serious "cloud" over the plaintiff's title; a bare, unsubstantiated denial (especially a "denial for want of knowledge," which is no denial at all in law) does not require that extra step. Since the adoption claimed by defendant no. 3 was never proved by any court, and the execution of the sale deed by Buchamma was never specifically denied or tested in cross-examination, the plaintiff's suit for possession based on title was maintainable without a separate declaratory prayer. The Court restored the first appellate court's decree in the plaintiff's favour and set aside the High Court's judgment.
A property owner suing simply for possession does not need to separately ask the court to "declare" their title unless the other side raises a real, substantiated challenge to it: a vague denial, especially one admittedly made "for want of knowledge," is not enough to force that extra legal step.
