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 moreIn 1959, the Bhattacharya family sold a Calcutta property to one Bholanath by a registered sale deed, and in a separate document dated a few days later, Bholanath agreed to reconvey the property to the family's nominees on repayment within two years, effectively, the family argued, a mortgage disguised as a sale. Bholanath later agreed to sell the same property to Atul Chandra Das, who obtained a decree for specific performance and a sale deed in 1977-79 and then sued to evict the Bhattacharyas. The Bhattacharyas, in turn, sued claiming the original 1959 transaction was really a mortgage by conditional sale which they were entitled to redeem, and both the trial court and the Calcutta High Court ruled in their favour, prompting Atul Chandra Das's heirs to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The appellant argued that under the proviso to Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, a mortgage by conditional sale requires the reconveyance condition to be embodied in the very same document as the sale, which was not the case here, since the sale deed and the reconveyance agreement were separate documents. The Supreme Court held that Section 37(A) of the Bengal Money-Lenders Act, 1940 (a State law) overrides this proviso and deems such a transaction a mortgage by conditional sale even when the condition is in a separate document, and that this State provision survives any inconsistency with the Central Transfer of Property Act because it received Presidential assent under Article 254(2) of the Constitution. The Court also rejected arguments that the Bhattacharyas' suit was not properly framed as one under the money-lenders law and that the State provision was beyond the State legislature's competence, and dismissed the appeals, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts.
A State law that would otherwise conflict with a central law on a Concurrent List subject (like the Transfer of Property Act) can still validly prevail within that State if it received the President's assent: a key constitutional safeguard (Article 254(2)) that property buyers and lenders need to be aware of when a transaction looks like an outright sale but may legally be treated as a disguised mortgage.
