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 dispute concerned land in Kempapura Agrahara Village, Bengaluru, originally acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) from the appellants' mother. The BDA had allotted the property to the respondents' father under an agreement, and a sale deed was later executed despite conditions not being fulfilled; the underlying acquisition was subsequently set aside on a writ petition filed by the appellants. The respondents (children of the original allottee) sued for a permanent injunction claiming a specific site, and while that suit was pending, the BDA executed a "rectification deed" changing the survey numbers describing the property, decades after the original allotment. The Trial Court dismissed the injunction suit, finding the respondents' title and the property's identity unproven, but the High Court reversed this in First Appeal and decreed the suit in the respondents' favour, prompting the present appeal.
The Supreme Court held that there was clear ambiguity in identifying the suit property and its location, and the plaintiffs (respondents) ought to have sought a court-appointed Commissioner and Surveyor to properly identify the site rather than relying on a one-sided survey. The High Court had erred in relying on an alleged BDA survey conducted at the request of the respondents' advocate: a survey carried out "behind the back" of the appellants, unsigned/unsealed in parts, silent on clear boundaries or measurements, and never proved by examining its author. The Court noted the underlying acquisition (from which the respondents' claim originated) had itself been set aside, so the respondents could claim no continuing right over that property, and found the decades-later "rectification" of survey numbers (made without valid reasons, after the original acquisition had already been undone) unconvincing and not a valid rectification. Since the respondents failed to prove title or properly identify the suit site, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit.
In a property dispute, a plaintiff seeking an injunction must clearly and independently prove both title and the precise identity/location of the disputed property, typically through a court-commissioned survey, rather than relying on a self-procured, unproven survey document; courts will not grant relief over land whose boundaries and ownership chain remain genuinely unclear.
