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 2001, Krishan Gopal agreed to sell over 9 acres of agricultural land in Punjab to Gurmeet Kaur and her two sons for Rs. 10 lakh, receiving Rs. 1 lakh as earnest money, but he failed to execute the sale deed by the agreed date. The buyers sued for specific performance and won at the trial court and in two rounds of appeal. Meanwhile, without disclosing it, Krishan Gopal had secretly sold the same land to a man named Arun Kalia (who claimed to be a tenant on the land) through registered sale deeds in 2002, and Arun Kalia later resold part of it to two more people in 2012, both sales happening after the original buyers' lawsuit was already filed.
The Supreme Court upheld the decree of specific performance in favour of Gurmeet Kaur and her sons, finding Krishan Gopal's shifting explanations (about whether he even showed up to execute the sale deed) undermined his credibility, while the buyers' financial readiness to pay was well established. The Court held that the sale deeds Krishan Gopal executed in favour of Arun Kalia, and Arun Kalia's subsequent resale, were void under the doctrine of lis pendens (Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act), since they were made only after the specific performance suit was already pending, and the Court found the entire "tenancy" story between Krishan Gopal and Arun Kalia to be a collusive fabrication designed to defeat the original buyers' rights. Because land values had risen sharply since 2001, the Court balanced the equities by ordering the buyers to pay an additional Rs. 25 lakh on top of the already-deposited balance consideration, and directed the sale deed and possession to be completed through the executing court.
Once a lawsuit for specific performance of a property sale is filed, any later sale of that same property by the seller is legally void against the original buyer under the doctrine of lis pendens: a seller cannot defeat a pending buyer's rights by secretly transferring the property to someone else during the case, even by dressing it up as a tenancy or a fresh sale.
