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 moreTwo adjoining residential plots (site nos. 47 and 53) in Bangalore were originally part of a larger parcel bought by one Madhavan Pillai, who laid out a residential colony. The respondent/plaintiff claimed to be in possession of both plots: site 53 under a registered sale deed, and site 47 under an unregistered agreement of sale plus a registered general power of attorney (full sale could not be registered due to a government ban on registering "revenue sites" at the time). The original owners' heirs (appellants) disputed the plaintiff's claim to site 47 and sought to interfere with his possession; the trial court had ruled against the plaintiff on site 47, but the Karnataka High Court reversed that and granted an injunction protecting his possession of both plots.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, holding that because this was a suit purely for a permanent injunction (not a title suit), the relevant question was lawful possession, not formal ownership. Based on the general power of attorney, the seller Madhavan Pillai's own testimony confirming the sale and the plaintiff's demonstrated possession, the High Court had correctly found the plaintiff entitled to injunctive protection. The Court expressly declined to rule on the separate, still-pending question of actual ownership/title, noting a parallel title suit between the parties was already in litigation.
A suit for permanent injunction is decided on proof of actual, lawful possession, not on final ownership, so a party can protect their possession through an injunction suit even while a separate dispute over legal title to the same property remains to be resolved elsewhere.
