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 neighbouring farmers in a village in Maharashtra owned adjoining agricultural fields. A re-survey in 1991 showed the defendant's field had grown from its original 4.23 hectares to 5.3 hectares, an increase of over a hectare, and the defendant had put up wire fencing enclosing this extra land. The plaintiffs got the revenue records corrected through the Sub Divisional Officer and then sued for possession, alleging encroachment.
The trial court, the first appellate court, and the High Court had all concurrently found, as a matter of fact, that the defendant had encroached on the plaintiffs' land, and the Supreme Court held such concurrent factual findings are not ordinarily open to interference. The defendant's claim that the boundary was originally marked by trees (not a fence) was rejected because he could not explain, with any evidence, how his holding had grown by over a hectare after the re-survey. The Court also rejected two technical legal objections: that the boundary map wasn't proved as required under Section 83 of the Evidence Act (it was an official document prepared by revenue authorities, not the plaintiffs, so its evidentiary value survived even after the SDO's underlying order was later set aside), and that the civil suit was barred under Section 138 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (that provision expressly permits a civil suit against an order of ejectment). The appeal was dismissed.
Once three courts in a row have made the same factual finding on an issue like land encroachment, the Supreme Court will generally not re-open that question on a further appeal, so a litigant's real opportunity to contest facts (as opposed to legal points) lies in the trial and first-appeal stages, not in approaching the apex court.
