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 housing cooperative society had agreed to purchase land from the respondents and, when the sale ran into dispute, sought specific performance of the contract through proceedings under Section 64 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, who ruled in the society's favour. The respondent-sellers successfully appealed to the State Cooperative Tribunal and then the Madhya Pradesh High Court, both of which held that a dispute over a sale of immovable property was not the kind of dispute that Section 64 was meant to cover. The society appealed further to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined whether the land sale dispute fell within Section 64's definition of disputes "touching the business" of a cooperative society. The Court held that because the individual sellers were ordinary landowners and not in the business of selling land commercially (not property dealers or land-bank operators), their sale transaction lacked any "business" character and could not be treated as a "business transaction" of the society for the purposes of Section 64. Agreeing with the Tribunal and High Court that such a private land-sale dispute was outside the special summary jurisdiction created for cooperative society disputes, the Court dismissed the appeal and also dismissed a connected contempt petition, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
A special, fast-track dispute-resolution forum created for cooperative societies (like a Registrar under cooperative law) cannot be used to resolve an ordinary private land sale dispute just because one party happens to be a cooperative society: such disputes must go through the regular civil courts unless the transaction itself has a genuine business character tied to the society's own purpose.
