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 a 1600 sq. yard plot in Green Park Extension, Delhi, originally reserved for a High School in a 1958 layout plan but de-reserved in 1969 because the plot was too small for the statutory school-area requirement. The land was later sold by the coloniser to five private owners in 1975, and when the Municipal Corporation (MCD, predecessor of the respondent SDMC) tried to interfere with their possession, civil suits in 1988 confirmed the owners' possession against the MCD. Decades later, the appellants (successors-in-interest of the original buyers) sought to have the plot formally incorporated into the colony's layout plan; a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court directed the MCD to consider this request, but a Division Bench reversed that direction, reasoning the land was still meant for public use as it had once been earmarked for a school.
The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench's reasoning was unsupported by the record: the school reservation had been validly and finally de-reserved back in 1958-69, and no subsequent material showed the land retained a "public purpose" character. The Court found that the MCD had never contested the appellants' predecessors' title in the 1988 civil suits or in any other forum, and a mere internal property listing by MCD could not itself prove title. Since the issue before the Single Judge was narrowly whether MCD should be directed to consider incorporating the plot into the layout plan, not a full title adjudication, the Division Bench had exceeded the proper scope of the appeal by going into ownership and public-purpose questions. The Court restored the Single Judge's order directing MCD to decide the appellants' application within 60 days, unclouded by the Division Bench's observations, and allowed the appeal with no costs.
Appellate courts should confine themselves to the actual scope of the order under challenge rather than reopening settled issues (like title) that were never contested by the parties in the courts below; long, undisputed possession under registered sale deeds, combined with a civil court's earlier findings, carries real weight even against a public authority's later claims.
