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 dispute arose over a small plot of agricultural land in Shamli, Uttar Pradesh. The appellants (successors of Ram Narain) had purchased the land in 1984 from the heirs of a recognised tenure holder and, shortly after, obtained a declaration converting its use from agricultural to residential. However, agricultural labourers from the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community had already been occupying the land and had built houses on it since 1976-77, before the statutory cut-off date of 30 June 1985. Under Section 123 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, such occupants' possession before that cut-off is deemed to statutorily settle ownership of the house-site with them. A local revenue officer ordered the occupants' names recorded as owners, and the appellants' challenge to that order was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal (and connected special leave petitions), agreeing with the High Court that Section 123's "deeming provision" applies regardless of whether the occupants' possession began with the landowner's consent or as trespassers: the legislature did not exclude unauthorised occupants, so if a house existed before 30 June 1985, statutory ownership vests in the occupant. The Court held that the appellants' 1984 purchase, and their later declaration under Section 143 converting land use, could not defeat this statutory right, since Section 143 only shifts inheritance rules and does not remove the land from the reach of Section 123. It found the appellants' own pleadings admitted the occupants had been in possession and built houses well before the cut-off date, undercutting their case. The Court also upheld the High Court's exercise of its supervisory power to quash related pending civil eviction suits as an abuse of process once statutory ownership was established.
Under U.P.'s land reform law, a person who builds a house on land and occupies it before the statutory cut-off date can gain deemed ownership of that house-site by operation of law, even without the landowner's consent: a later purchaser of the land takes it subject to this statutory right and cannot use a change-of-land-use declaration to defeat it.
