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 appellant, widow of a man who had died during the litigation, sued for partition of three family properties, claiming a share on behalf of her late husband. The defendants (her husband's family) argued that one of the properties, a house in Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi, was the self-acquired property of the appellant's late father-in-law, built from his own salary and savings decades earlier, and therefore not available for partition; they also claimed it had later been gifted away to another family member. Both the trial court and the Delhi High Court (as the first appellate court) agreed with the defendants and dismissed the appellant's claim to that property, leading her to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court re-examined the evidence and reversed the concurrent findings of the two lower courts, holding that the property could not be treated purely as the father-in-law's self-acquired asset in the way the courts below had found, and that they had failed to properly exercise their jurisdiction, causing a miscarriage of justice to the appellant's rights. The Court also held that because the father-in-law (originally a defendant) died during the pendency of the proceedings, Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 applied to his share of the property, meaning it had to devolve equally among his Class I legal heirs, including the appellant's deceased husband's share, which she inherited. The Court further found the gift deed executed over the property during the litigation to be invalid, since the appellant was already in physical possession of part of the building and the deed could not lawfully have been acted upon. The appeal was allowed, each party (the plaintiff and each defendant) was given an equal one-fourth share in the property, and the appellant was permitted to retain possession of the floor she occupied until formal division by metes and bounds.
Under Hindu succession law, if a person with a share in disputed property dies while a partition case is still pending, that share automatically passes to all of their legal heirs in equal portions, and any gift or transfer of that property made during the pendency of litigation, especially one that ignores a party already in physical possession, can be struck down as invalid.
