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 appellant, landlord of shops in Bahadurgarh, Haryana, sought eviction of three tenants under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, claiming the shops were in a dilapidated and unsafe condition. The Rent Controller, the Appellate Authority, and the High Court (in revision) all rejected the eviction petitions after weighing competing expert evidence and concluding the premises were not proven to be dilapidated. The respondent tenants did not appear before the Supreme Court despite being given extra time to file written submissions.
The Supreme Court, after itself reviewing the entire record in the respondents' absence, held that the concurrent factual findings of the three lower forums were based on a plausible assessment of the expert evidence and were not perverse, so the High Court's limited revisional jurisdiction had correctly declined to interfere. The Court also rejected the appellant's argument based on an alleged subsequent event (a collapsed "chhajja"/overhang in 2012), since no record showed this had actually been raised before the lower appellate forums. The appeals were dismissed, but the Court expressly permitted the landlord to file a fresh eviction petition if the premises' present condition had genuinely deteriorated, since that would constitute a new cause of action.
The Supreme Court will not disturb concurrent findings of fact by multiple lower courts/tribunals unless they are shown to be perverse; however, dismissal of one eviction petition does not bar a landlord from filing a fresh petition later if the property's condition genuinely changes, since that creates a new, independent cause of action.
