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 moreA family dispute over 1/6th share of agricultural land in Haryana traced back to a 1932 compromise decree, under which one Sheo Lal received only a limited, non-transferable right to use the land during his lifetime, with the property reverting to the original owners' heirs after his widow's death. After the widow, Chhimli, died in 1976, the plaintiffs (heirs of the original owner) sued for possession, while Sheo Lal's successors argued the widow had become full owner under the Hindu Succession Act. The trial court ruled for the plaintiffs, the first appellate court reversed, and the High Court restored the trial court's decision in the plaintiffs' favour.
The Supreme Court held that Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act (which enlarges a Hindu woman's pre-existing limited estate into full ownership) did not apply, because neither Sheo Lal nor his widow Chhimli ever had any "pre-existing right" in the property: their rights were newly created by the 1932 compromise decree itself, not recognition of an existing claim. Since the right was carved out for the first time by the decree, it fell instead under Section 14(2) of the Act, which does not upgrade such newly-created, limited rights into absolute ownership. The Court relied on its earlier ruling in V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy to distinguish between a pre-existing right (like maintenance) and a right created afresh by a court decree. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
A limited property right given to someone for the first time through a court decree or compromise (rather than recognizing a right they already had, such as a maintenance claim) does not automatically become full ownership under Hindu succession law: the distinction between a "pre-existing right" and a "newly conferred right" can determine who ultimately inherits land decades later.
