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 had been residing on a plot of land since purchasing it under a registered sale deed dated 27.03.1997, but was accused before the Special Court under the Land Grabbing Act of illegally occupying 252 square yards belonging to the applicant, who claimed ownership of 555 square yards under a 1965 sale deed. The Special Court and the High Court both found the appellant to be a land grabber and ordered his eviction, prompting this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that "land grabbing" under the Act has both a broad meaning (unauthorized, unfair, or greedy taking) and a narrow one (forcible or violent snatching), so proof of criminality or violence is not essential - only proof of unlawful intent to take possession. A court-appointed Commissioner's survey report showed the appellant's property actually fell within survey number 9 (the applicant's numbered plot) rather than survey number 10 (as described in the appellant's own sale deed), and the appellant's two earlier civil suits for injunction had both failed. The appellant's claim of title by adverse possession also failed because he offered no proof of when the disputed construction was actually built. The appeal was dismissed.
A property owner cannot rely on adverse possession or an old sale deed to defend against a land-grabbing complaint if the survey number in that deed does not match the physical plot they actually occupy - buyers should always verify that the survey number on their title documents corresponds to the land they are physically occupying.
