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 dispute concerned 102 acres in Gurramguda Forest Block, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, which the State had notified as a reserved forest in 1971 under the Telangana Forest Act. Respondent Mir Jaffar Ali, claiming to be a successor-in-interest of the erstwhile Jagirdar Salar Jung-III (whose Jagir estates were abolished by law in 1949), filed a claim before the Forest Settlement Officer (FSO) in 2005-34 years later, seeking to have this land excluded from the forest notification on the ground that it was his family's private "Arazi-Makta" (self-acquired) land, not government land. A first FSO order rejected the claim, but on remand a second FSO accepted it, and this was upheld successively by the appellate District Judge and the Telangana High Court, relying on old sale deeds, a 1954 release letter, and a 1956 Gazette notification.
The Supreme Court traced the entire legislative and case-law history of Jagir/Inam abolition in the former Hyderabad State and held that once Jagirs were abolished in 1949, the land vested in the Government, and prior Supreme Court/High Court precedent (including a 1985 judgment specifically on this very land, holding the Government had acquired title by adverse possession) established the land was Government property. The Nazim Atiyat Court, which the claimants relied on, only ever had jurisdiction to decide succession to cash "commutation" payments, never to determine title to land, so its 1968 order could not establish private ownership. The Court found the claimants' documents (an old undated sale deed, ambiguous release letters) unreliable and legally insufficient, and held the FSO exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a title claim filed decades after the statutory window and by treating a summary inquiry as equivalent to a full title suit. It set aside the orders of the FSO, the District Judge, and the High Court, held the land is Government forest land, and directed the State to complete the pending final forest notification within 8 weeks. A connected, separately-filed appeal by another claimant (Aga Syed Naimath Ullah Shustri) asserting a rival title was also dismissed as parasitic on the same failed claim.
Old, uncorroborated documents and favourable findings from bodies (like the erstwhile Atiyat Courts) that never had jurisdiction to decide land title cannot be used to unsettle a State's ownership established through decades-old abolition laws and prior court rulings: claims to government/forest land carry a heavy burden of proof, and courts will not allow summary administrative proceedings to be used as a backdoor route to relitigate title long since settled.
