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 moreLicensed surveyors under Section 18A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 prepare official survey sketches used to update government land records. Different Single Judge Benches of the Karnataka High Court had taken conflicting views on whether such licensed surveyors count as "public servants" for the purposes of anti-corruption prosecutions, so the question was referred to a Division Bench, which held that they are public servants. These appeals arose from that conflict, including one case (the lead appeal, No. 1140/2016) where a Single Judge had taken the opposite view.
The Supreme Court held that licensed surveyors are indeed "public servants" within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, because they perform a statutory duty of preparing survey sketches that directly affects official revenue records: work that was previously done by government surveyors and was only outsourced to licensees due to workload. The Court noted that their qualifications, training, fees, jurisdiction and even cancellation of license are all controlled by the State Government, meaning they are bound by the terms of a government-issued license rather than functioning as ordinary private contractors. Agreeing fully with the Division Bench's reasoning, the Court held this satisfies the "public duty" test under Section 2(b) of the Act. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2017 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 113-114 of 2017 (filed against the Division Bench ruling) were dismissed, while Criminal Appeal No. 1140 of 2016 (against the contrary Single Judge view) was allowed.
A person need not be a direct government employee to be prosecuted as a "public servant" under anti-corruption law: if a license-holder performs a statutorily assigned public duty (like preparing official land records) under close government control, they can be held to the same anti-corruption standards as a government employee.
