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 dispute concerned land near Chinneri Tank Bund in Salem district, originally held under short seasonal leases before the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 vested the entire village in the State. The plaintiff's predecessor repeatedly applied for a Ryotwari patta over the land but was rejected multiple times on the ground that it was tank/irrigation land, not cultivable "ryoti" land. The State later handed the land to Salem Municipality, part of which was given to a transport corporation for a bus stand, prompting the plaintiff to sue for title and possession. The High Court had reversed the trial court and ruled in the plaintiff's favour, prompting Salem Municipality and the State to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff's predecessor never had any right, title, or proven possession in the land immediately before the vesting date, so Section 64 of the 1948 Act (which protects owners temporarily dispossessed) could not help him. It found the High Court's inference, that because only part of the land was given to the transport corporation, the rest must belong to the plaintiff, to be a "wholly impermissible, unsustainable, perverse and illegal" leap unsupported by evidence. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the First Appellate Court's dismissal of all three suits, and additionally imposed a cost of Rs. 1 lakh on the plaintiff/respondent for multiplying proceedings through repeated suits. The appeals were allowed.
A claimant must affirmatively prove his own title and possession before a vesting date: courts cannot infer ownership merely from the government's partial allotment of disputed land to a third party, and pursuing baseless repetitive litigation can result in a costs order.
