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 deity-run temple's land records originally listed its Pujaris (priests) as occupants while ownership stood in the name of the Deity. In 1979-80, the revenue authorities unilaterally changed the records to designate the Collector as "Vyawasthapak" (Manager), implying the temple was a public one under government oversight. The Pujaris challenged this change, and their suit for declaration and injunction was decreed in their favour after the first appeal, which the State then challenged all the way to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the correction to the revenue records in 1979-80 was never made following the mandatory procedure under Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which requires a proper inquiry and a hearing for affected parties before such a correction. Since this procedural safeguard was skipped, both the First Appellate Court and the High Court had rightly held the change unsustainable. The Court also distinguished the State's cited precedents, noting this temple was not listed among public temples and the land had not been leased from the Government. The appeal was dismissed, while clarifying that the authorities remain free to follow the correct Section 115 procedure if they wish to revisit the entries in future.
Government authorities cannot alter land or property records to a citizen's detriment without following the required notice-and-hearing procedure first: procedural shortcuts, even for a seemingly administrative correction, can be struck down regardless of the underlying intent.
