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 involved a Calcutta property where the appellants had obtained ex-parte decrees of title in 1994 and taken possession through court bailiffs with police assistance in 1996. The respondent, who had earlier run a business on the premises and separately claimed title by adverse possession (a claim ultimately dismissed in a separate suit), filed applications under Order XXI Rules 98-100 CPC to be restored to possession after being dispossessed; the Executing Court rejected his application, but the Calcutta High Court reversed that and ordered him restored to possession, holding that title need not be examined in such proceedings.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to say that questions of right, title, or interest need not be decided in proceedings under Order XXI Rules 99-101 CPC: in fact, a person seeking to be restored to possession after dispossession in execution must affirmatively establish his own title (here, by proving adverse possession), and mere prior possession is not enough. Since the respondent had failed to prove his claimed title by adverse possession, and his separate suit making that very claim had since been dismissed, his application could not succeed. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Executing Court's order rejecting the respondent's application, with each side bearing its own costs.
In disputes over who should hold possession of property after a court-ordered dispossession, simply having lived on or used the property before is not sufficient: a claimant must actually prove his legal right or title to the property to be put back into possession.
