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 original plaintiffs sued a landowner for specific performance of a 2005 agreement to sell a property. While that suit was pending, and despite a court injunction against transferring the property, the owner sold it to the appellant by a 2008 sale deed. About four years later, the appellant applied to be impleaded as a defendant in the pending suit, claiming a direct interest as the property's purchaser. The trial court allowed his impleadment, but the Chhattisgarh High Court set that order aside on the plaintiffs' challenge, holding the appellant was not a necessary or proper party since no relief was claimed against him.
The Supreme Court framed the core question as whether plaintiffs in a specific-performance suit can be forced to add a party against their wishes when no relief is sought against that party. Relying on its earlier decision in Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal, the Court held that a third party or stranger to the contract, even one claiming independent title through a sale from the same vendor, cannot be impleaded in a specific-performance suit over the plaintiffs' objection, because doing so would improperly convert a contract-enforcement suit into a title/possession dispute. The Court distinguished precedents cited by the appellant (Robin Ramjibhai Patel and Shri Swastik Developers) on the basis that those involved applications by the plaintiffs themselves to add subsequent purchasers, not an unwilling plaintiff being forced to accept a third party. It agreed with the High Court's view and dismissed the appeals, with no order as to costs, while noting such a subsequent purchaser is not left remedy-less: they may later resist execution or file their own independent title suit.
A plaintiff suing for specific performance of a contract is the "dominus litis" (master of the suit) and cannot be compelled to implead a subsequent purchaser or other stranger to the contract as a defendant against their wishes; such a person's remedy lies in resisting execution of any eventual decree or filing a separate title suit, not in forcing their way into the existing proceedings.
