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 plaintiff (appellant) sued in 1990 for specific performance of a 1987 agreement to sell a 150 sq. yd. plot, claiming the defendant's brother had executed the agreement as his power-of-attorney holder and that earnest money had been paid. The defendants denied ownership of the property and denied that any valid power of attorney or agreement existed. The trial court decreed specific performance in the plaintiff's favour, but the First Appellate Court reversed this, and the Delhi High Court upheld that reversal in second appeal, prompting this further appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that specific performance can only be ordered where it is proved that the person who executed the agreement actually had the right to transfer the property. Since neither defendant was shown to be the owner, and the alleged power of attorney authorising defendant No. 2 to sell was an unregistered document never relied upon or considered by the lower courts, the essential foundation for a decree of specific performance was missing. The Court agreed with the First Appellate Court and the High Court that the agreements were unenforceable, and found no substantial question of law warranting interference. The civil appeal was accordingly dismissed.
A court cannot order specific performance of a sale agreement unless it is first established that the person who signed it actually had legal authority (ownership or a valid, provable power of attorney) to transfer the property: proof of the agreement alone is not enough.
