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 moreTwo individuals, Rajaiah and Nanjaiah, claimed to be agricultural tenants of land in Kurubarahalli village, Mysore, and obtained a 1981 Land Tribunal order granting them "occupancy rights" (ownership-type rights) under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The University of Mysore, which held the same land on a 99-year lease from the Union of India (originally gifted by the Maharaja of Mysore), challenged this, alleging the Tribunal's order was a forged document actually referring to entirely different plots of land in another village. Trial and appellate courts initially ruled against the University, and the matter reached the Supreme Court after the University produced original revenue records before it.
The Supreme Court examined the original Land Tribunal records and found that the reference numbers the respondents relied on (K.L.R.M. No. 4480/79 and 4481/79) actually belonged to grants of occupancy rights to entirely different persons over land in a different village, proving the order relied upon by the respondents was fabricated. The Court also held that under Section 107 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, land belonging to or leased by a university is exempt from the Act altogether, meaning the Land Tribunal had no jurisdiction to grant occupancy rights over this land in the first place. It rejected the argument that the University's challenge was time-barred, since the University and the Union of India had never been made parties to the original Tribunal proceedings and acted promptly once the fraud came to light. The Court set aside the lower courts' and High Court's rulings, restored the trial court's dismissal of the respondents' suits, quashed the 1981 Land Tribunal order as a fabricated document, and allowed the University's appeals with no order as to costs.
Occupancy or tenancy rights obtained through forged or mismatched official records can be challenged and set aside at any later stage once the fraud is discovered, and land held by public institutions like universities on lease can be fully exempt from land-reform laws that would otherwise convert tenancy into ownership.
