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 moreIn 1970, one Duli Chand mortgaged agricultural land to a bank to secure a tractor loan. After he failed to repay, the bank sued and obtained an ex-parte decree in 1984 against his legal heirs (who were also the judgment-debtors) for recovery of the dues by sale of the mortgaged property. In 1985, after this decree, and even after the bank had already moved to execute it, one of the judgment-debtors' relatives sold portions of the very same mortgaged land to a couple (respondent nos. 1 and 2) for a total of Rs. 70,000. The bank subsequently had the entire mortgaged property attached and auctioned in 1988; the appellants (sons of one of the judgment-debtors) were the successful bidders and took possession. The couple who had bought portions of the land then filed a separate civil suit claiming ownership and possession, alleging fraud in the auction, and this suit succeeded before the Trial Court, the first Appellate Court, and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, prompting the present appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the couple's purchases were "transfers pendente lite", made while the bank's recovery suit and execution were already pending, so they were bound by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and could not defeat the decree-holder's rights. It further held that their separate civil suit was barred in law: as representatives/transferees from a judgment-debtor, they were required to raise any grievance through an application under Section 47 CPC or Rule 99 of Order XXI CPC within the executing court itself, not through a fresh independent suit, and having failed to use those remedies in time, their suit was not maintainable. The Court therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment. However, given that more than 40 years had passed, that the couple had genuinely paid Rs. 70,000 in good faith to the vendor, and that the auction-purchaser appellants were themselves close relatives (nephews) of that vendor, the Court invoked its power to do complete justice and, rather than leaving the couple to start fresh litigation to recover their money, directly directed the appellants to pay them Rs. 75,00,000 within six months (with 12% annual interest on any delay), bringing the four-decade-old dispute to a final close.
A buyer who purchases property while a court case affecting that very property is already pending (or after execution proceedings have begun) takes it subject to the outcome of that case, and cannot later mount a separate lawsuit to protect the purchase. The law channels such objections through specific, time-bound remedies inside the execution proceedings themselves, and missing those deadlines can be fatal even if the buyer acted in good faith.
