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 appellant's father had leased out part of a large plot in Chembur, Mumbai to a partnership firm belonging to the Vijan family in 1972. After the lease was terminated and an eviction suit filed, one family member (Respondent No. 1) claimed rights over a small 550-square-foot portion based on a family settlement agreement reached through court-appointed mediation, and separately claimed a tenancy right in that sliver of land. After the original tenant firm surrendered its tenancy and the eviction suit was withdrawn, Respondent No. 1 still sought and won an interim injunction from the Bombay High Court restraining the appellant from disturbing his possession of that 550-square-foot patch, stalling the appellant's redevelopment of the entire 22,000-square-foot property.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting the injunction because Respondent No. 1 had not established a prima facie case: his claimed tenancy rights were themselves the subject of a still-pending trial before the Small Causes Court, and mere assertions under a family settlement did not by themselves prove ownership or tenancy. Applying the settled three-part test for interim injunctions (prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm), the Court found the balance of convenience and irreparable harm both favoured the appellant, since the disputed area was a small fraction of the whole property and the appellant, as owner, was suffering real financial loss from the stalled redevelopment. The Court set aside the High Court's injunction but, to balance equities, directed the appellant to keep one unit of about 550 square feet reserved in the redeveloped property as security in case Respondent No. 1 ultimately wins his pending civil suit.
An interim injunction cannot be granted merely because a party asserts a right through a settlement or family arrangement. Courts must first be satisfied there is a genuine prima facie case, and a property owner cannot be indefinitely blocked from using the bulk of their property over a disputed fragment while the underlying ownership question is still on trial.
