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 moreA partnership firm's deed allowed surviving partners to buy out a deceased partner's share by giving notice to his legal heirs within three months of death. When one partner died in 1990, the surviving partners gave such notice, but the heirs sued for full dissolution of the firm and rendition of accounts instead, alleging the buy-out clause was never properly complied with. A trial court granted the heirs only a 1/4th share under the buy-out clause, but the High Court instead ordered full dissolution and account-settlement "as of date," entitling the heirs to a continuing share of profits.
The Supreme Court held that the partnership deed's buy-out clause (Clause 14) showed a clear intention that the firm would continue despite a partner's death, so the general statutory rules on automatic dissolution on death (Partnership Act, Sections 37 and 42(c)) did not apply. It found the notice had, in substance, reached the heirs and that the real fault was the surviving partners' prolonged failure to actually pay out the dues, not an absence of a buy-out mechanism. The Court set aside the High Court's finding that the clause "never became operational" and its direction for full dissolution, holding instead that the heirs were entitled only to their 1/4th share of the firm as it stood at the date of death, with 10% interest per annum until paid, not a continuing share of post-death profits.
A partnership deed's contractual buy-out clause for a deceased partner's share can override the law's default dissolution-on-death rule, but only if its terms are honoured and acted upon: unreasonable delay in actually paying out dues does not entitle heirs to claim a share of the business's ongoing profits.
