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 moreA public trust, Shri Hanuman Deosthan, sued for possession of a house in Nagpur on the basis of title, claiming the property had originally belonged to the "Math" of a deceased Hindu saint and had passed through a chain of trustees/panchas before being registered as the trust's property under the Bombay (later Maharashtra) Public Trusts Act. The trial court decreed possession in the trust's favour, but the District Court (First Appellate Court) reversed this, finding the trust had not proved its title; the Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench, in second appeal, then restored the trial court's decree in favour of the trust, prompting the defendants' appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that in a suit for possession based on title, the plaintiff trust bore the primary burden of establishing its own title to the specific house, and must succeed or fail on that title alone, regardless of any weaknesses in the defendants' case. Reviewing the evidence, the Court found no tangible proof of the trust's title to this particular house, and held the High Court had misread a witness's admission and a letter (Exhibit-75) as supporting the trust's claim when in fact neither did so. Concluding that the First Appellate Court's decision dismissing the suit was correct, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the dismissal of the trust's suit for possession.
In a civil suit for possession based on title, the plaintiff must affirmatively prove their own ownership with real evidence: they cannot win merely by pointing to gaps or ambiguous statements in the defendant's case.
