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 moreTwo sisters (the original plaintiffs, since substituted by their legal representatives as appellants) challenged a 1965 sale deed by which their brother (acting as "Karta," or male head, of their joint family) sold a family property in Jalna, Maharashtra ("Moti Building") to a third party. An earlier 1971 suit filed by the purchaser's heirs against the brother had already resulted in a 1975 decree recognizing the purchaser's heirs as owners, which had attained finality. The sisters then filed a fresh suit seeking a declaration that this 1975 decree did not bind them and that the original 1965 sale deed was invalid, but the trial court, first appellate court, and the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) all dismissed their suit.
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, holding that the finding in the earlier 1971 suit, that the brother, as Karta, had validly sold the property for family legal necessity (to pay off his debts), bound not just him but also the sisters, as members of the same joint family, since a Karta's sale for legal necessity and family benefit binds all family members. The Court found the sisters had failed to plead or prove that the sale was not for the family's benefit or that there was no legal necessity, while the purchaser's side had affirmatively proved the sale was justified. It also noted the sisters had themselves admitted in evidence that they filed their suit at their brother's instigation, which the Court treated as evidence the suit was a collusive attempt to defeat the earlier, final decree rather than a bona fide claim. Finding no error in the concurrent findings of the courts below, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.
A sale of joint family property made by its "Karta" for a genuine family necessity or benefit is binding on all members of the family, even those who did not personally consent to or participate in the transaction, and courts will scrutinize a later challenge to such a sale for signs that it is a collusive attempt to escape an earlier, already-final decree.
