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 moreIn 1960, a father (Pritam Singh) sold ancestral agricultural land in Punjab to two purchasers. His son, Kehar Singh, sued claiming the sale was invalid because it was made without his consent and without any genuine family necessity, as required under the custom governing the family's ancestral property. After decades of litigation (including one earlier remand by the Supreme Court itself in the 1970s), the matter returned to the High Court, which on the existing evidence held that the sale was valid because it was made to repay family debts and fund agricultural improvements, and dismissed the suit. The son's legal heirs appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court examined the Hindu law principles (as stated by Mulla) on a father/Karta's power to alienate ancestral coparcenary property for "legal necessity," which includes paying off family debts and funding agricultural improvement. Reviewing the trial evidence, testimony about Taccavi loans, a private loan, and expenditure on a tubewell for the family's land, the Court agreed with the High Court that the purchasers had proved genuine legal necessity existed at the time of the sale. Since legal necessity was established, the son, as a mere coparcener, had no independent right to challenge his father's sale. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court's judgment upholding the sale was affirmed.
A father who is the Karta (manager) of a Hindu joint family can validly sell ancestral property without the consent of his sons if he can show the sale was genuinely necessary for the family, such as repaying debts or improving family land, and such a sale then binds all coparceners, including those who did not consent.
