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 2021, an FIR was registered over a 1989 land transaction in which land vested in the State under the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act, 1976 was transferred to a cooperative housing society, the J&K Cooperative Housing Corporation (JKCHC), through a Tehsildar's document called a "fard Intikhab." The respondent, Brij Bhushan, was the Managing Director of JKCHC at the time and was named as an accused alongside the Tehsildar and the landlords' power-of-attorney holder, on allegations of corruption and criminal conspiracy. The J&K High Court quashed the FIR against him, and the Union Territory appealed.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the quashing, though it clarified it was not endorsing the High Court's broader reasoning that no criminal case could ever arise from a prohibited land transfer under the Agrarian Reforms Act. On the facts specific to Brij Bhushan, the Court found the acquisition was carried out after JKCHC verified land rights with the Collector, that the land had since been developed into a residential colony with no attempt by the State to repossess it, that there was no personal benefit alleged against him, and that the FIR contained only a vague allegation of "connivance" with government officials rather than any concrete act.
A bare, generic allegation of "connivance" against an official of a body that received land through a government transaction is not, by itself, enough to sustain a corruption case. There must be some concrete allegation of wrongdoing or personal benefit specific to that individual.
