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 moreUnder a 1945 perpetual lease deed, the Governor General in Council leased land at Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi to the respondent company, who built residential flats and other units on it. After Independence, the Union of India stepped into the lessor's shoes and occupied several flats to house government officials, allegedly paying monthly rent. When the government allegedly defaulted on rent for 1989-91, the respondent filed an eviction case under the Delhi Rent Control Act, and courts below (up to the Delhi High Court) ruled that a landlord-tenant relationship existed, ordering eviction. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing its occupation was governed exclusively by the terms of the government grant/lease, which overrides ordinary rent control law under Section 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895.
The Supreme Court held that Section 3 of the Government Grants Act must be read broadly: it gives an overriding effect to the terms of a government grant, prevailing over any inconsistent general law (not merely excluding the Transfer of Property Act as courts below had narrowly assumed), so long as the government stays within the four corners of the grant's actual terms. Since the lease deed contained no express clause allowing eviction for non-payment of rent, the Court held that such a right could not be read into the grant merely because the respondent would otherwise lack a remedy: the existence of a remedy elsewhere cannot manufacture jurisdiction under the Rent Control Act. It therefore found that the Delhi Rent Control Act had no application to this relationship, that the eviction proceedings were founded on the wrong legal regime from the outset, and set aside the High Court's judgment affirming eviction. The Court clarified this did not bar the respondent from pursuing other appropriate civil remedies (such as a suit for recovery of rent) in accordance with law.
When the government occupies property under a formal grant or lease deed, the specific terms of that grant, not general tenancy/rent-control law, govern the relationship, and remedies like eviction cannot be assumed simply because a private landlord might otherwise be left without one.
