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 moreDDA had allotted a leasehold plot in Jasola, New Delhi to a club, which was not permitted to mortgage or otherwise encumber the property without DDA's consent. The club nonetheless obtained a loan from Corporation Bank by mortgaging the leasehold plot; when the loan went into default, the bank auctioned the property through the Debts Recovery Tribunal's Recovery Officer, and an Auction Purchaser bought it in good faith and paid the full price. DDA challenged the entire chain of mortgage, auction, and sale before the Delhi High Court, which dismissed DDA's writ petition.
The Supreme Court held that the mortgage itself was illegal because it was created without DDA's consent in breach of the lease terms, meaning the bank never had valid title to auction in the first place. It quashed the auction notice, the auction sale, and the sale certificate issued to the Auction Purchaser, framing the case around competing duties: the lessee's duty to honour lease covenants, the bank's duty to exercise due diligence before lending, and DDA's duty as trustee of public land to guard against encroachment. Because the Auction Purchaser acted in good faith and did not profit from the illegality, the Court ordered the bank to refund the Auction Purchaser's entire deposited amount with 9% annual interest, treating this restitution as a moral as well as legal imperative.
Buying property at a bank auction does not guarantee good title if the underlying mortgage itself was created illegally (e.g., without a landlord's required consent), but an innocent buyer caught in such a chain is entitled to full restitution with interest from the party responsible for the illegal transaction, typically the lending bank.
