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 appellant was a residential tenant in premises that his landlord had mortgaged to the Bank of India as security for a loan. When the landlord defaulted, the Bank, acting under the SARFAESI Act, obtained an order from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directing recovery of possession of the mortgaged property, treating the tenant's presence as irrelevant since he held no registered lease deed. The appellant's attempt to intervene and stay that order was dismissed by the Magistrate, relying on an earlier Supreme Court decision (Harshad Govardhan Sondagar) that was read to require a registered instrument before a tenant's possession could be protected. This case was the lead matter for several similar appeals raising the same question across different tenants and banks.
The Supreme Court held that the SARFAESI Act and state Rent Control Acts operate in different fields: the SARFAESI Act exists to help banks recover non-performing assets, while Rent Control Acts are social-welfare legislation protecting tenants from arbitrary eviction, and the SARFAESI Act's "override" clause (Section 35) cannot be stretched to extinguish rent-control protections entirely. The Court clarified that its own earlier ruling in Harshad Govardhan Sondagar had not held that an unregistered lease or an oral tenancy agreement (accompanied by delivery of possession and payment of rent) is without legal protection: under Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, a valid monthly tenancy can arise even without a registered instrument. Allowing banks to evict such tenants purely because their lease was unregistered would make state Rent Control Acts "useless and nugatory" and leave blameless tenants at the mercy of defaulting landlords. The Court set aside the impugned Magistrate/High Court orders and allowed the appeals, while directing that rent amounts already deposited during the litigation be adjusted toward the landlords' outstanding bank debt.
A genuine tenant cannot automatically be evicted by a bank just because the landlord mortgaged the property and defaulted, or because the tenancy was never formally registered: proof of actual possession, rent payment, and a landlord-tenant relationship (even oral) can still entitle a tenant to protection under state rent control law against a bank's SARFAESI recovery action.
