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 respondents owned 14 acres of land in Kerala that was treated as a "private forest" liable to vest in the State under the 1971 Act. They claimed an exemption under Section 3(3) of the Act on the ground that they had acquired the land before the "appointed day" (10 May 1971) and intended to personally cultivate it, having planted rubber and other crops. The Forest Tribunal granted the exemption, but after review and appeal proceedings, the matter had already reached the Supreme Court once before (2007) and was remanded to the High Court; after the High Court again dismissed the State's appeal on remand, the State approached the Supreme Court a second time.
The Supreme Court held that the key question, the correct interpretation of "intended for cultivation" under Section 3(3) and whether that provision applied to the respondents' land, had already been conclusively decided by the Court in the earlier round of litigation in 2007, and the State could not reagitate the same point after remand. The Tribunal's seven factual findings (including that the respondents held valid pre-1971 title and were using the land for personal cultivation, including rubber plantation, before the appointed day) were supported by documentary evidence and had not been shown to be perverse or illegal. Since those findings stood undisturbed, the Court found no ground to interfere and dismissed the State's appeal.
Once an appellate court has authoritatively interpreted a statutory provision and remanded a case for its application to the facts, a party cannot use a second round of appeal to reopen the same legal question that was already settled, and sound factual findings based on documentary evidence, once upheld twice, are very difficult to dislodge.
