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 were legal heirs of Hari Singh, who had been sued for specific performance of a sale deed over about 7 "Kanals" of land left out of three earlier sale deeds he had executed for a larger plot. The suit for specific performance was decreed by the trial court, reversed on first appeal, and then restored by the High Court in second appeal, bringing the matter to the Supreme Court. Separately, Hari Singh's coparceners (joint family members) had an independent, still-pending suit seeking to cancel the three earlier sale deeds, arguing Hari Singh was not of sound mind (due to alcohol/drug addiction) and that the sales did not benefit the joint family.
The Supreme Court held that the outcome of the still-pending coparceners' suit (challenging whether the land was ancestral property and whether Hari Singh, as Karta, could validly sell it) would have a direct bearing on the specific-performance dispute before it. It therefore disposed of the appeals by directing the Ludhiana Civil Judge to try that pending suit expeditiously, framing specific issues for trial (ancestral character of the property, coparcener status of the heirs, whether the sale benefited the joint family, and Hari Singh's competence as Karta to sell). The Court clarified that Hari Singh's mental competence itself was not to be reopened, since there was already a concurrent finding that he was of sound mind. The parties were left free to return to the High Court after that suit was decided.
When a joint Hindu family's Karta sells ancestral property, the validity of that sale can be challenged by other coparceners on specific legal grounds (ancestral character, family benefit, Karta's authority), and courts will ensure related suits on these questions are resolved together rather than in isolation.
