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 moreIn 2014, the respondents booked an apartment with Godrej in a Gurgaon project and signed a Buyer's Agreement that allowed the developer to forfeit 20% of the Basic Sale Price as "earnest money" if the buyer cancelled. In 2017, after the developer offered possession, the buyers instead sought to cancel the deal, citing a fall in market prices, and demanded a full refund. The developer offered to refund the amount after deducting 20% earnest money; the buyers approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which reduced the forfeitable amount to only 10% of the Basic Sale Price plus interest. Godrej appealed to the Supreme Court against this reduction.
The Supreme Court examined the Buyer's Agreement and found its terms heavily one-sided: while the developer could forfeit the full 20% earnest money on a buyer's default, the compensation payable to a buyer for the developer's own delay was comparatively meagre. Relying on its own precedents on unfair, one-sided contracts under consumer protection law, the Court agreed with the NCDRC that a 20% forfeiture was excessive and unreasonable, and upheld capping it at 10% of the Basic Sale Price: consistent with an existing line of NCDRC decisions on the same point. However, the Court held that the NCDRC was wrong to also award interest on the refunded amount, since the buyers themselves chose to cancel due to a market downturn rather than any fault of the developer.
Standard-form builder-buyer agreements that heavily favour the developer can still be struck down as unfair by consumer protection forums, even a contractually agreed forfeiture clause must be reasonable in amount, not simply enforced as written.
