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 plaintiff had entered into a registered agreement to sell with the first defendant in 1992, paying most of the price upfront with the balance due once certain society/regulatory clearances were obtained. When the first defendant backed out of signing a power of attorney needed for those clearances and walked away from the registering office, the plaintiff waited nearly two years before issuing a notice offering to pay the balance: by which time the property had already been sold twice over to other buyers. The plaintiff's suit for specific performance was decreed by the trial court but reversed by the High Court, which found the plaintiff had not remained "ready and willing" to perform her part of the bargain as the law requires.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court, holding that no prudent, genuinely interested buyer would stay silent for nearly two years after an unequivocal repudiation of the agreement, and this delay and inaction showed the plaintiff was not continuously "ready and willing" to perform, as mandated by Section 16(c) of the Specific Relief Act. The Court distinguished a precedent the plaintiff relied on (M.M.S. Investments) because that case involved a sale after a decree had already conveyed the property to the plaintiff, unlike here where the disputed resales happened before any suit was even filed, making the three-judge-bench ruling in Ram Awadh v. Achhaibar Dubey the applicable law instead, i.e., any defendant, including subsequent purchasers, can raise the readiness-and-willingness defence, not just the original seller. The Court also noted the plaintiff never sought cancellation of the two subsequent sale deeds, which independently barred specific performance since those sales would have to be set aside first. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision.
Anyone seeking court-ordered performance of a sale agreement must show continuous readiness and willingness to pay and perform their side of the deal, sitting silent for years after the other side clearly backs out can itself defeat the claim, regardless of who the property was later sold to.
