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 moreA family property, originally bought by one Chikkanna, passed to his three sons after his death, who sold it in 1950 with a condition that it be reconveyed to them if the buyer ever resold it. After years of litigation the sons won a court-ordered reconveyance in 1974 and got possession back, making the property joint family property again, but soon after, one of the three sons, without consulting the others or his own nephews (the grandsons of Chikkanna), struck a compromise in a separate execution appeal that handed part of the property back to the original purchaser's successor (the appellant here). The grandsons, who were never party to that compromise, sued for a declaration that it didn't bind them, and the High Court agreed; the purchaser's side appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that once the property was returned to the three brothers by the 1974 court decree, it legally reverted to the character of joint family (coparcenary) property, giving the grandsons an inheritance interest in it from that point onward. Because the grandsons were never made parties to, and never consented to, the 1976 compromise struck by only one of the three brothers, that compromise could bind only that brother's own share and could not take away the grandsons' interest in the property. The Court found no error in the High Court's factual findings and dismissed the appeal, confirming that the compromise did not bind the grandsons' share.
A compromise or settlement over jointly owned family property binds only the people who actually agreed to it: it cannot be used to sign away the shares of other family members (including those with inheritance rights, like grandchildren) who were never made parties to that settlement or asked for their consent.
