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 moreA tenant (Sirdar) named Pursottam applied in 1974 for Bhumidhari (ownership-like tenancy) rights over certain plots and, a day later, sold the same plots by a registered sale deed to another person, Ajudhi, even though his application for Bhumidhari rights over two of the plots was subsequently rejected and he died before it could be resolved for the third plot. A 1977 UP Ordinance/Act later granted transferable Bhumidhar rights to Sirdars, and the question was whether Pursottam's heirs (and by extension the sale to Ajudhi) could benefit from this retrospectively, given his pending applications had by then abated.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 73 of the amending Act, all pending Bhumidhari applications and proceedings (including Pursottam's revision) stood abated, so his claim to Bhumidhari rights over two of the plots was extinguished before the 1977 Ordinance came into force, meaning he could not retroactively benefit from it to validate his 1974 sale deed for those plots. The Court held the High Court erred in ruling otherwise for one suit (Suit No. 30 of 1978) but had correctly decided the companion suit (Suit No. 31 of 1978) regarding the third plot. It partly allowed the appeal, affirming the dismissal of Suit No. 30 of 1978 and maintaining the earlier decree on Suit No. 31 of 1978.
A statutory benefit that depends on a person's status (such as being a "Sirdar") on a specific date cannot be claimed retroactively by someone whose rights, applications, or proceedings had already lapsed or abated under the law before that date, timing of a legal status matters as much as the substance of the claim.
