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 moreBaxis Singh sued for specific performance of a 1996 agreement under which he claimed to have purchased agricultural land from a woman (defendant No. 1) through her general attorney. A second defendant, Sukhdev Singh, claimed he actually owned and possessed the land under a registered will executed by his late father, and that separate revenue-court proceedings had already confirmed his title and possession. The Rajasthan High Court had partly allowed Baxis Singh's appeal, denying specific performance but ordering defendant No. 1 to refund the sale consideration with interest.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that Sukhdev Singh was the true owner and was in possession of the land based on the will and prior revenue-court orders in his favour, which had not been disturbed in any other proceeding. Since Baxis Singh's claim to purchase the land depended on the seller actually owning it, and the seller did not, specific performance could not be granted; the High Court was right to limit relief to a refund with interest instead. Having reached this conclusion, the Court found it unnecessary to examine the parties' other arguments. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with each side bearing its own costs.
A buyer cannot obtain specific performance (forcing a sale through) when the seller's own title to the property is itself disputed and ultimately found to belong to someone else; in such cases the remedy is typically limited to recovery of money paid, not transfer of the property.
