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 State of Kerala appealed against a 2007 Kerala High Court ruling that had set aside a Forest Tribunal order and favoured the respondent landowners, in a dispute over whether their land qualified as a "private forest" that should vest in the State under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971. The key factual questions were whether the landowners had acquired the land before the Act's "appointed day" (10.05.1971) and whether they were using it for personal cultivation at that time, both of which would exempt the land from vesting in the State. This appeal was heard together with a near-identical Civil Appeal No. 9912/2010, which the Supreme Court dismissed by a detailed order on the same day, and whose reasoning on the interpretation of the Act was applied here as well.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings that the landowners had acquired the land before the 1971 appointed day and had been personally cultivating it since then, based on a court-appointed commissioner's on-the-spot inspection report made in the presence of both parties. The Court held these factual findings were properly based on the evidence, free of any perversity, arbitrariness, or illegality, and satisfied the twin conditions under Section 3(3) of the Act needed to claim exemption from vesting: consistent with the Supreme Court's earlier ruling in Joseph & Anr. vs State of Kerala & Anr. (2007) 10 SCC 414. Finding no merit in the State's appeal, the Court dismissed it, relying substantially on the reasoning already laid down the same day in the companion Civil Appeal No. 9912/2010.
To claim exemption from a forest-vesting law, a landowner must be able to show, with solid evidence like an independent on-site inspection, both that they acquired the land before the law's cutoff date and that they were personally cultivating it at that time, and once a High Court has made such factual findings properly on the evidence, the Supreme Court will not disturb them merely because the State disagrees.
