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 Unchgaon Village Panchayat and the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation disputed which body had authority over certain lands in Village Uchgaon, after the Corporation issued a public notice in 2013 declaring specific survey lands within municipal limits and threatening to demolish unauthorized constructions on them. The Panchayat filed a civil suit claiming these lands had never validly been brought within municipal limits and sought declarations and an injunction against the Corporation. The trial court initially held it had jurisdiction to hear the dispute and granted an interim injunction, but the Bombay High Court reversed this, ruling that questions about the extension of municipal limits are essentially legislative decisions of the State Government and cannot be second-guessed by a civil court through a suit. The Panchayat then appealed to the Supreme Court, along with a related contempt petition over an interim status-quo order.
The Supreme Court held that fixing municipal limits under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act is a legislative-type statutory power exercised by the State Government, and its validity cannot ordinarily be challenged through an ordinary civil suit for declaration and injunction. It further held that since the Corporation's demolition notice was issued under its planning-authority powers under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, Section 149 of that Act expressly bars civil courts from entertaining challenges to such statutory actions. The Court also noted the inclusion of these lands within municipal limits dated back to arrangements from 1945, and such a long-settled position could not be unsettled through a belated civil suit decades later. Agreeing with the High Court that the reliefs sought were really about invalidating statutory/public-law action rather than enforcing private civil rights, the Supreme Court dismissed the Panchayat's appeals, vacated the earlier status-quo order, and disposed of the related contempt petition as no longer surviving.
Ordinary civil suits are not the right forum to challenge government decisions on matters like municipal boundary-fixing or statutory planning actions. Where a special law grants finality to such decisions and bars civil court jurisdiction, disputes must be pursued through the remedies that law itself provides, not through a civil suit for declaration and injunction, especially after long, unchallenged delay.
