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 temple (Arulmighu Kallalagar Thirukoil) and a group of devotees separately sued the Government of Tamil Nadu, claiming that the entire forested Alagar Hills (about 15,838 acres), long treated by the government as reserved forest, actually belonged to the temple's presiding deity. The trial court dismissed both suits for lack of evidence of the temple's title and upheld an 1883 government notification reserving the forest, but the Madras High Court reversed this on appeal, holding the 1883 notification was legally defective and that the temple's long-standing possession justified a presumption that the land had been granted to it and the grant later "lost."
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had made a basic factual error: it mixed up two different historical notifications (one for "Alagarmalai," the land in dispute, issued under Section 25 of the Madras Forest Act for land already reserved before the Act, and another unrelated notification for a different hill range, "Aggamalais," issued under Section 4) and wrongly concluded there was no valid reservation order for Alagar Hills prior to the Act. Because the correct notification was issued under Section 25, which does not require the procedural inquiry steps (Sections 6 and 8) that the High Court held were missing, the reservation was valid. The Court also held that the evidence did not show continuous possession or assertion of title by the temple sufficient to presume a "lost grant," so the temple had failed to prove ownership. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the government's appeals, while also recording and approving a negotiated compromise under which the Forest Department would allow a dedicated 50-foot pathway and about 18.3 hectares of land for devotees to reach the hill shrines, with strict curbs on any non-religious use of that area.
Courts must carefully distinguish between different historical government notifications before drawing legal conclusions from them, since a simple documentary mix-up can lead an entire appellate judgment astray; also, long-standing religious or community use of land is not, by itself, enough to establish ownership: clear evidence of continuous possession under an actual claim of title is required before a court will presume that a formal land grant was made and later lost.
