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 moreAfter Gorden Wapshare died intestate in 1991, his son (appellant no. 1) obtained a Succession Certificate in 2005 covering the family estate. Shirley Katheleen Wheeler, who claimed to be a relative through a different branch of the family (daughter of one Beatrice, said to be connected to Gorden's brother Edward), applied to revoke that certificate. A Sub-Judge rejected her revocation application, both because she was found to be an outsider to the Wapshare family and on the ground that an earlier related case had already been dismissed (res judicata). The Madras High Court, on revision, held the res judicata finding was wrong and sent the whole matter back to the Sub-Judge for a fresh decision, without examining the other two grounds the Sub-Judge had relied on.
The Supreme Court held that a Succession Certificate can only be revoked on the specific grounds listed in Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act (such as fraud or a defective application), and none of those grounds were shown to exist here. It further held that, on the respondent's own pleadings, she described herself only as the daughter of Beatrice and never asserted being the daughter of Edward Wapshare (Gorden's brother), meaning she was not a blood relative of the Wapshare family at all. Since Gorden died without a valid will, Section 33(a) of the Act meant his estate could only pass to his widow and lineal descendants: a category that did not include the respondent in any way. While the High Court had correctly found the res judicata reasoning wrong, it erred by stopping there instead of examining these other dispositive grounds; the Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court's remand order and restored the Sub-Judge's original order refusing revocation, allowing the appeal.
A court asked to cancel a legal document like a Succession Certificate must find one of the specific statutory grounds for revocation: it cannot be revoked simply because a relative disputes the outcome; and a person must actually establish their blood relationship to the deceased (as a lineal descendant or as defined by the succession law) before they can claim any right to challenge how an estate is distributed.
