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 moreThe appellant, a retired Army officer, owned a shop in Almora which he had let out to the respondent. He sought the tenant's eviction on the ground of bona fide need to start a business there for his physically disabled son, under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972. After roughly two decades of litigation across two rounds, the High Court finally upheld the eviction but additionally granted the tenant two years to actually vacate the shop. The landlord appealed only against that two-year grace period, arguing it defeated the purpose of the eviction order.
The Supreme Court agreed with the landlord that the High Court was not justified in granting a full two years to vacate, since the respondent-tenant had shown no justifiable extreme hardship and there was no statutory or contractual basis for such a long period, especially given a special statutory provision designed to ease the path to eviction for landlords who are serving or retired soldiers. Noting the case had already consumed 20 years and that the hardship now fell more heavily on the elderly landlord, the Court modified the order: it fixed a firm vacate date of 31 August 2016, conditioned on the tenant depositing arrears of rent and paying use-and-occupation charges, and awarded Rs. 10,000 in costs. The appeal was allowed in part.
Courts should be cautious about tacking on long compliance or grace periods to an eviction decree without a clear factual or legal justification, since an unreasonably long timeline can effectively nullify a landlord's hard-won legal victory, particularly for landlords who are serving or retired defence personnel, who enjoy special statutory protection.
