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 moreThis was a long-running family dispute over partition of 79 items of agricultural land near Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu. The plaintiff (one son of family patriarch Sengan) claimed a one-fourth share, asserting all properties were joint Hindu family property traceable to ancestral land. The defendant (Sengan's other son, Dorairaj) argued many properties were his father's or his own self-acquisitions from independent income (as a contractor, moneylender, and government/panchayat worker), and also relied on an unregistered Will allegedly executed by Sengan three days before his death bequeathing everything to certain grandchildren. Trial and appellate courts gave the plaintiff a 5/16th share (after some modification), excluding only a few specific items proven to be Dorairaj's independent purchases, and rejected the Will as suspicious.
The Supreme Court dismissed Dorairaj's appeal and upheld the High Court's findings. It held that once ancestral property yielding income (two specific agricultural items, supported by wells and irrigation pumps) was shown to exist during the joint family's continuance, the burden shifted to the person claiming self-acquisition to prove it: a burden Dorairaj failed to meet, since merely holding some independent earnings does not automatically negate a joint family's contribution to acquisitions made in a family member's name. The Court agreed that alienations by the family head (as "Karta") in favour of one coparcener are valid only where proved to be for genuine legal necessity, and upheld the item-by-item scrutiny that separated valid from invalid transactions. It also affirmed rejection of the Will, citing suspicious circumstances (a thumb impression rather than the testator's usual signature, execution just 72 hours before death, and an unreliable scribe), and noted the rejection had already attained finality since it was not challenged earlier.
In a Hindu joint family, once ancestral income-generating property is shown to exist, properties later acquired in a family member's name are presumed to be joint family property unless that member affirmatively proves independent means: vague claims of personal income are not enough, and sales by the family head to one heir are valid only if genuine necessity (such as proven debts or medical expenses) is established.
