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 moreAfter a family partition in 1986, one brother sold his allotted share of land to Defendant No. 1, who in turn sold it to the appellant (Defendant No. 2) in 1993. Defendant No. 1's children later sued for partition, claiming the land was really "ancestral" property bought using joint family funds and could not have been sold without their consent. The trial court dismissed the suit, the first appellate court reversed and ruled for the children, and the High Court, in a second appeal, restored the trial court's decree against the appellant-purchaser, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that once ancestral property is validly partitioned, each sharer's portion becomes their own self-acquired property, which they are free to sell; the mere existence of sons and daughters does not automatically convert a father's self-acquired property into joint family property. The evidence showed Defendant No.1 bought the disputed land using a loan from a named lender (which he later repaid by selling other land), not from any proven joint family "nucleus" fund, and the plaintiffs failed to produce any real proof of such a fund. The Court also held that the High Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code by re-appreciating evidence and manufacturing a "substantial question of law" where none existed, when the first appellate court's factual findings were plausible and not perverse. The sale to the appellant was upheld and the first appellate court's judgment in his favour was restored.
A High Court cannot re-examine settled facts in a second appeal merely because it disagrees with the first appellate court's view. It can only intervene where there is a genuine, substantial question of law; and property inherited through a lawful partition becomes the recipient's own to sell, unless clear proof shows it was bought entirely with joint family money.
