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 moreGanpati Yadavrao Kumbhare, a member of the Southern Nagpur Co-operative Society, had a decades-old dispute with the Society over allotment of Plot No. 5A in its layout, dating back to a 1991 claim before the Cooperative Court, Nagpur. He won an award in 2000 directing the Society to allot him the plot, which survived appeals through the Cooperative Appellate Court and a writ petition, but the Society then resisted execution, arguing the plot had lost its separate identity after merging with two adjoining plots (4 and 4A) and that constructions now stood on the merged land. Prakash Namdeorao Dhage, a Society member and the owner of a shop built on part of that land, filed his own connected Special Leave Petition (the one at this diary number) challenging the same Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) order that had gone against the Society, since his shop's continued existence was tied to the outcome.
The Supreme Court examined a photograph relied on by both sides showing the disputed area partly open and partly covered by a passage-like structure leading to a community hall. It found no dispute over the nature of that structure and held there was no justification for it to continue standing on Plot No. 5A, directing its removal and the handover of vacant possession of the plot to Kumbhare. However, the Court expressly clarified that shop owners (including intervenors) occupying the adjoining Plots 4 and 4A, the plots merged with 5A, would not be affected by this order and could continue their occupation undisturbed, since their shops stood on the other, unaffected plots. Both the Society's appeal and Dhage's connected appeal were dismissed, upholding the High Court's order, and all intervention applications were rejected.
In long-running property execution disputes, connected parties whose interests overlap with the main litigants (here, a shop owner on the disputed plot) can and should get their own legal challenge heard by the same court alongside the principal case, but a favourable outcome for them is not guaranteed just because they are procedurally joined; the Court decides based on what the specific plot in question requires, and unaffected neighbours' rights can be expressly carved out and protected even while the core dispute is resolved against the objecting party.
