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 brothers from a large business family (the Vaikundarajan and Jegatheesan groups) were locked in a dispute over dividing their late father's business empire. The Vaikundarajan group relied on a family partition document ("KBPP") signed by all parties in December 2018, coupled with a "Conciliation Award" allegedly recorded a few days later, to treat the split as final and legally enforceable as a decree. The Jegatheesan group admitted signing the partition document but claimed it was only a tentative draft signed under undue influence and that the so-called Conciliation Award was a fabricated afterthought, never the product of any genuine conciliation. After failing to get arbitration ordered and losing earlier attempts to halt execution proceedings, the Jegatheesan group filed a fresh civil suit challenging both documents, which the trial court and the Madras High Court rejected at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC.
The Supreme Court held that the trial court and High Court erred in treating the partition document and the later "Conciliation Award" as a single, unified instrument: the plaint raised two legally distinct challenges: that the partition document was signed under coercion, undue influence and misrepresentation, and separately that the Conciliation Award was a fabricated document never validly executed under Part III of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court found the alleged Conciliation Award lacked key procedural safeguards (such as authentication by the conciliator as mandated under Section 73(4)) and that coercion within a family need not involve an explicit physical threat to be arguable. It can arise from a felt sense of subservience to an elder, which is a matter for evidence at trial, not summary rejection. Since a plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 if it discloses no cause of action on its face, and here a real (not illusory) cause of action was pleaded, the rejection of the suit was "egregiously erroneous in law." The Court set aside the lower courts' orders, restored the suit for trial alongside the pending execution objections, and separately noted it would remain open to the parties to instead pursue a fresh arbitration if the Vaikundarajan group agreed to withdraw its reliance on the two contested documents.
A civil suit cannot be thrown out at the preliminary stage under Order VII Rule 11 CPC merely because a document was admittedly signed: genuine disputes about whether consent was procured through coercion, undue influence or fraud (including within family settlements) must be tested through evidence at trial, not dismissed as illusory at the outset.
