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 moreAfter the death of tenure-holder Roda alias Rodilal in 2019, the appellant Tarachandra claimed to be the legatee under Rodilal's registered will and applied for mutation of the land records in his favour. Bhawarlal (the first respondent), who claimed possession of part of the land based on an unregistered sale agreement, objected. The Tehsildar allowed mutation (subject to a pending civil suit), and this was upheld on appeal by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Commissioner. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, relying on an earlier ruling that mutation could not be based on a will, set aside these orders and directed that the land instead be mutated in the name of legal heirs under the Hindu Succession Act.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by mechanically applying its earlier (now-outdated) precedent without examining whether the revenue authorities' orders actually suffered from any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity: the correct standard for interference under Article 227. The Court explained that nothing in Sections 109-110 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 bars acquiring rights in land through a will, and the 2018 Mutation Rules expressly recognise a will as one valid mode of acquisition; a Full Bench of the High Court itself (in Anand Choudhary) had already clarified that mutation applications based on a will cannot be rejected at the threshold, though genuine disputes about a will's validity must go to a civil court. Since none of Rodilal's actual legal heirs disputed the will, and the objecting respondent's claim rested only on an unregistered sale agreement (no decree of specific performance), the revenue authorities had correctly allowed mutation in Tarachandra's favour subject to the outcome of any civil proceedings. The Supreme Court restored the mutation order, reiterating throughout that a mutation entry is only for fiscal record-keeping and confers no independent title.
A will can validly support a mutation entry in land revenue records, and objections from someone who is not a legal heir and holds only an unregistered agreement (not a registered title or a court decree) cannot block that mutation, though, as always, a mutation entry itself never settles ownership, which remains open to a civil court to decide.
