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 appellants and the respondent had together filed a 1987-88 revenue suit that was decreed, declaring all three of them joint bhumidars (co-owners) of certain lands. In a later partition proceeding, Revenue authorities initially held the respondent entitled to only a 1/10th share, a finding upheld on appeal by the Commissioner and in second appeal. The respondent challenged this in the High Court, which held the 1/10th-share finding was perverse because it ignored the earlier, final co-bhumidari decree, and restored an Assistant Collector's order recognising a larger (roughly one-third) share for the respondent; the appellants' recall/review application against this was also dismissed.
The Supreme Court held that since the 1987-88 suit had been filed jointly by all three parties and resulted in a decree declaring them co-bhumidars with no evidence of any actual partition having since taken place, that earlier decree governed the parties' relationship and could not be overridden by the later administrative finding restricting the respondent to a 1/10th share. Finding no interference warranted, and noting the impugned order had already been complied with, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court's restoration of the respondent's larger share.
A final, unchallenged joint decree declaring parties as co-owners of property generally prevails over a later, inconsistent administrative or revenue finding on individual shares, unless an actual partition between the co-owners is shown to have taken place.
