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 moreThe appellant had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a house, claiming the owner had agreed to sell it to him in 1993 but then sold it to someone else instead. The owner denied the agreement, alleging his signature on it was forged. The Trial Court believed the attesting witnesses and decreed the suit in the buyer's favour, but the High Court reversed this, relying solely on a handwriting expert's opinion that the signature was forged.
The Supreme Court held that a handwriting expert's opinion is inherently weak evidence that should rarely be given precedence over credible eyewitness testimony, and the High Court erred by ignoring the consistent evidence of the attesting witnesses and a related receipt (also bearing the owner's signature) that was never even sent for expert examination. The Court also noted that the expert's comparison was flawed because most of the "admitted" signatures used for comparison were signed only after the lawsuit began, undermining the report's reliability. It further found the owner's own brother had admitted in cross-examination that the disputed signature was genuine. Concluding that the signature was authentic and the buyer had always been ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the Trial Court's decree for specific performance.
In property and contract disputes, courts should not let an expert's handwriting opinion automatically override consistent, credible testimony from witnesses who were actually present: expert evidence is only one corroborative factor, not an automatic trump card.
