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 appellants had entered into agreements to sell land with the respondent and filed suits for specific performance. When they sought to produce the unregistered agreements as evidence, the trial court found them insufficiently stamped and, exercising what it believed was its discretion, ordered the appellants to pay the deficit stamp duty plus only double (rather than the usual ten times) that amount as penalty before the documents could be admitted. The High Court set this aside, holding that the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 mandates a flat ten-times penalty with no judicial discretion to reduce it.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act give a court admitting an insufficiently stamped document no discretion to impose less than ten times the deficit duty as penalty, only a separate authority, the Deputy Commissioner, has limited power under Section 38 to later refund part of that penalty. However, since the underlying suits had already been stuck at this threshold stage for over five years, the Court used its own equitable discretion to finally close the stamp-duty dispute by approving payment of the deficit duty plus only double the penalty (as the trial court had originally ordered), instead of sending the parties through the lengthy refund process before the Deputy Commissioner.
Courts generally have no power to reduce the mandatory ten-times penalty for producing an under-stamped document as evidence, but the Supreme Court can, in appropriate cases, cut short a drawn-out bureaucratic process to deliver a practical final result rather than prolonging litigation over a technical procedural question.
