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 9 cents of land in Ernakulam, Kerala, originally transferred by the appellant's father to the respondents' father through a 1955 sale deed and a 1964 conveyance deed that recorded two different survey numbers (1236 and 1250) for what appeared to be the same plot, later clarified by a 1994 settlement deed as survey no. 1236. The respondents sued for declaration of title and boundary fixation; the Trial Court dismissed the suit, but the Kerala High Court twice remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a Court Commissioner: the second time even after the Supreme Court had already set aside the first remand for lacking proper reasoning.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in remanding the case a second time, since the boundary descriptions in all the relevant documents (the sale deed, conveyance deed, and settlement deed) were essentially identical and the discrepancy was only in the survey number: an issue the documents themselves, especially the 1994 settlement deed, already resolved. The Court found the matter could be decided purely through interpretation of these three documents without a fresh Commissioner's report, and that further remand would only prolong litigation that had already run for over 14 years. It allowed the appeal and directed the High Court to decide the appeal itself on merits within six months.
Appellate courts should not repeatedly remand cases for fresh fact-finding when the existing documentary evidence is sufficient to decide the dispute, doing so only causes unnecessary and prejudicial delay to litigants.
