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 moreAn Additional Collector in Madhya Pradesh had granted permission under Section 165(6) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (a provision meant to protect tribal landholders from being induced into selling their land) allowing respondents to sell their land, resulting in a registered sale deed in 2018. Years later, the Divisional Commissioner used his suo motu revisional power under Section 50 of the Code to set aside that permission, holding the Additional Collector lacked jurisdiction to grant it and had not properly applied his mind. The purchaser challenged the revisional order in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which restored the original permission and mutation, partly on the ground that the revision was filed beyond the 180-day limit set by an earlier Full Bench ruling. The State appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal. It found that the Additional Collector had in fact been validly authorised by the Collector, well before granting the permission, to exercise powers under Section 165(6), and that the permission order had duly considered the required statutory factors, including that the land was not in an area notified as predominantly inhabited by tribal communities. Since the underlying permission was found to be proper and free of any illegality or jurisdictional defect, the Court did not need to separately decide the limitation question, and held the Commissioner's revisional interference was itself erroneous.
A government officer's decision, if backed by properly delegated authority and a reasoned consideration of all statutory requirements, cannot be casually overturned years later through a suo motu revision unless there is real evidence of fraud, illegality, or a genuine jurisdictional defect.
