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 morePrabha Jain's father-in-law had bought a plot of land in 1967, which after his death was to be inherited equally by his heirs, including Prabha's late husband. Without any formal partition, her brother-in-law illegally sold off portions of the land, including one plot sold to a third party who then mortgaged it to Central Bank of India to obtain a loan. When that loan went into default, the Bank moved to take possession and auction the property under the SARFAESI Act. Prabha filed a civil suit claiming the sale deed and mortgage were both a nullity since she had never consented to the sale, and sought possession of the land. The Bank argued the civil court had no jurisdiction to hear the case at all, since SARFAESI disputes must go to the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT); the trial court agreed and rejected the plaint, but the High Court restored the suit.
The Supreme Court dismissed the Bank's appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the civil court did have jurisdiction. It reasoned that the DRT's powers under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act are limited to examining whether the "measures" the bank took to enforce its security (like taking possession) were lawful: the DRT has no power to decide the underlying validity of a sale deed or a mortgage, especially where, as here, the person challenging it (Prabha) was never a party to either document and was never in possession. The Court examined a chain of precedents, clarified where two of them had gone wrong in ignoring these distinctions, and also urged banks to be more careful about verifying property titles before sanctioning loans against them.
A person who was never a party to a mortgage and never had possession of the property, and who is challenging the very validity of the underlying sale deed rather than the bank's recovery procedure, can go to a regular civil court rather than being forced into the specialised DRT process meant for disputes between banks and borrowers.
