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 dispute concerned an alleged 1990 General Power of Attorney executed by a couple, Ranveer Singh and Gyanu Bai, in favour of their tenant, G. Rajender Kumar, and three subsequent registered sale deeds that Rajender Kumar then executed in favour of his own wife using that power of attorney. Ranveer Singh denied ever having executed the power of attorney at all, and the case raised questions about whether the power of attorney and the resulting sale deeds had been properly authenticated and registered under the Registration Act, 1908.
Rather than deciding the appeal on its facts, the two-judge Bench focused on a pure legal question: whether a power-of-attorney holder who signs a sale deed on behalf of a principal becomes the "executant" of that deed himself (as an earlier decision, Rajni Tandon v. Dulal Ranjan Ghosh Dastidar, (2009) 14 SCC 782, had held), or remains merely an "agent" who must independently satisfy the Registration Act's authentication and identity-verification requirements. The Bench disagreed with the Rajni Tandon view, reasoning that a power-of-attorney holder who merely signs on the principal's behalf does not become the executant in his own right and must still meet the Act's authentication requirements. Because this directly conflicted with binding precedent, the Bench could not simply overrule it. It instead directed the Registry to place the matter before the Chief Justice for listing before a larger Bench to authoritatively resolve the question, leaving the present appeals themselves undecided on merits for now.
When a Supreme Court Bench disagrees with an earlier binding precedent, the proper course is to refer the legal question to a larger Bench rather than overrule it directly; practically, this case flags that the rules on authenticating power-of-attorney-based property sale deeds remain unsettled and buyers/sellers relying on such arrangements should expect extra scrutiny until a larger Bench decides the point.
