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 moreTwo separate but related disputes were heard together. In the first, the Punjab Wakf Board claimed ownership of agricultural land leased to Sham Singh and his wife, and sought to restrain them from converting it from agricultural to residential use; when the tenants disputed the land's Wakf character, the Wakf Tribunal held it alone had jurisdiction, but the High Court, in revision, ruled otherwise. In the second, the Wakf Board sued Teja Singh for possession of property before the Tribunal, and the High Court (relying on an earlier Supreme Court ruling) held the Civil Court, not the Tribunal, had jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court held that where a defendant specifically denies that a suit property is Wakf property, that very question of whether the property is Wakf property can only be decided by the Wakf Tribunal, applying its earlier ruling in Haryana Wakf Board vs. Mahesh Kumar. The Court also examined the limitation period under Section 6 of the Wakf Act, holding that a one-year limit for disputing a published list of Wakfs applies to anyone wanting to challenge that list, except those not served notice under Section 4(1). Applying these principles, the Court allowed the first appeal (Sham Singh Harike) and set aside the High Court's order, restoring the Wakf Tribunal's jurisdiction; but in the second appeal (Teja Singh), it agreed with the High Court's reliance on binding precedent that the Civil Court had jurisdiction, and dismissed that appeal. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Whether a Wakf Tribunal or a Civil Court has jurisdiction over a property dispute often turns on the specific nature of the parties' pleadings, particularly whether the Wakf character of the property itself is disputed, so outcomes can differ even between similar-looking cases depending on these pleaded facts.
