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 developer and a group of landowners entered into a 2017 agreement for sale of about 54 acres of land in Telangana, with part of the land later transferred through registered sale agreements while a disputed balance of about 17.5 acres (the "suit property") remained unregistered amid a dispute over how much had actually been paid. The developer sued for specific performance and obtained temporary injunctions from the trial court protecting its possession and restraining the landowners from alienating the suit property, but a High Court division bench later vacated the injunction protecting the developer's possession, finding no clear proof of physical possession. The developer then approached the Supreme Court challenging that High Court order.
The Supreme Court held that both central issues, whether possession of the suit property was ever handed over, and how much consideration was actually paid, were seriously disputed questions of fact that could only be resolved at trial, not at the interim injunction stage. Since the developer's interest in the property was already protected by a separate, unchallenged injunction restraining the landowners from creating third-party rights in the suit property, the Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's order vacating the possession-related injunction. It affirmed the High Court's order, expressly clarified it was expressing no opinion on the merits of the underlying suit, dismissed the appeals, and directed the trial court to expedite and dispose of the suit within one year.
Temporary injunctions are provisional remedies, not merits determinations, where facts like possession or payment are genuinely disputed, courts will often leave them to be decided at trial rather than resolve them at the interim stage, especially if the applicant's core interest is otherwise adequately protected by another standing order.
