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 moreIn 1976 the Jharkhand (then Bihar) State Housing Board allotted 192 flats to Ranchi University for its employees' residence, to be paid for over 180 monthly instalments; the University paid regularly for years but later defaulted on the balance, prompting the Board to raise a large demand and eventually threaten/pursue cancellation of the allotment. Some University employees occupying the flats filed a writ petition claiming independent rights over the flats directly against the Board. A learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court had ruled in the University's favour, but a Division Bench (in a Letters Patent Appeal) reversed that, ruling for the employees/Board side, leading the University to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the occupant-employees had no independent contractual right against the Housing Board because the original allotment was always between the University and the Board, not between individual employees and the Board; the employees never filed a suit for specific performance to enforce any such independent right, and a mere incidental payment of Rs. 10,000 by some employees to the Board (contrary to the University's directions) could not create independent rights or affect the University's own rights. Since the Board had revoked its cancellation after accepting payment from the University, the original 1976 allotment stood restored in the University's favour. The Court therefore disagreed with the Division Bench's reasoning, restored the Single Judge's order, allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench's judgment, and dismissed the underlying writ petitions, while granting the University liberty to pursue eviction of unauthorised occupants under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (with penal rent), liberty to finalize the flat allotment issue with the Board/State, and directing that any employees who had paid money to the Board could seek a refund with interest within three months of demand.
Occupying a property or making incidental payments toward it does not by itself create an independent legal right against the property owner: a party's rights flow from the actual contract they are party to, and anyone claiming an independent right must formally seek enforcement of that right (e.g., through a suit) rather than relying on informal occupation or payment.
