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 moreHarnam Singh died in 1934, and his widow Prem Kaur inherited the property under prevailing custom in Punjab. In 1951 she executed a gift deed giving equal 1/3rd shares to her three daughters, Basant Kaur, Dalip Kaur, and Raj Kaur, and possession and revenue mutation followed accordingly without objection. After Basant Kaur's death, her husband Ram Kishan, relying on her will, sued for possession of her 1/3rd share, while the other two daughters (as reversioners) argued the property should instead pass to them as Harnam Singh's heirs. The trial court decreed in Ram Kishan's favour, the first appellate court reversed it, and the High Court restored the trial court's decree.
The Supreme Court held that although Prem Kaur held only a limited widow's estate and technically lacked full power to gift the property, her three daughters, the only persons who could have challenged the gift as reversioners, had instead accepted it, got the mutation recorded in their names, and never disputed it for decades. The Court treated the 1951 gift as, in substance, a family arrangement intended to avoid future disputes, which reversioners who consent to and benefit from cannot later repudiate. Since all three daughters had accepted the arrangement, Dalip Kaur (one of the very reversioners who benefited) could not now contest Basant Kaur's share, and the Court affirmed that Ram Kishan was entitled to possession of the 1/3rd share as her legal heir. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the High Court's judgment in favour of the respondent.
If family members accept the benefit of a property arrangement (such as a gift from a limited owner) for years without objecting and get it formally recorded, they generally cannot later turn around and challenge its validity: courts favour honoring long-accepted family settlements over revisiting old transactions on technical grounds.
