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 moreFour connected 1994 suits for specific performance of agreements to sell were decreed by the trial court, reversed on first appeal, and then restored by the High Court in second appeal only in 2018, over two decades after the original decrees. The decree-holders (plaintiffs) filed execution petitions and sought court permission to deposit the balance sale consideration, which the judgment-debtors (defendants) resisted by applying under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act to have the contracts rescinded for non-payment within the originally stipulated 20-day window.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view that Section 28 rescission requires the court that passed the decree to have fixed a specific time for deposit, and the decree-holder to have wilfully defaulted on it, neither of which applied here, since the High Court's 2018 order restoring the trial court's decree did not itself prescribe a fresh deposit deadline. The decree-holders had promptly sought and been given permission to deposit shortly after filing execution, and there was no unreasonable delay attributable to them. The Court also distinguished an earlier precedent relied on by the judgment-debtors, holding it applied to a materially different factual scenario, and found no error of law in the High Court's dismissal of the rescission applications.
A judgment-debtor cannot force rescission of a specific-performance decree under Section 28 merely by pointing to an old, since-superseded timeline; rescission requires a live, court-fixed deposit deadline and genuine wilful default by the decree-holder. Courts will not let defendants use stale procedural deadlines to defeat decrees that have already been through years of appeal.
