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 moreTwo plots of land were purchased in 1971 in the names of three minor sons of one Rudrappa. Rudrappa, as natural guardian, sold one plot without obtaining the court's permission required for alienating a minor's property. The buyer's line of title eventually passed to K.S. Shivappa in 1989, after the minors (by then adults) and their mother executed a fresh sale deed to him. Smt. B.T. Jayadevamma, an earlier purchaser in the same chain, sued for declaration, possession and injunction, and the Trial Court decreed in her favour, holding the minors could not later ratify or repudiate the situation the way they did; the matter reached the Supreme Court through further appeals involving Neelamma (who claimed under the minors) and Shivappa.
The Supreme Court examined whether the plaintiff (whose case depended on a sale allegedly made by the minors after attaining majority) could succeed without personally entering the witness box to prove her case, relying instead on a power-of-attorney holder's testimony. Citing precedent (including a case where one of the judges on this Bench had earlier sat), the Court held that a power-of-attorney holder cannot testify in place of the principal on matters within the principal's personal knowledge, and a plaintiff's refusal to testify is fatal to her case. The Court also held that the sale deed executed by the father (natural guardian) without court permission was validly repudiated by the minors within time after attaining majority, so no valid title passed to the plaintiff's predecessor. The High Court and First Appellate Court judgments were set aside and the Trial Court's dismissal of the suit was restored.
A person suing to enforce property rights must personally testify on facts within their own knowledge: a power-of-attorney holder cannot substitute for the plaintiff on such matters; also, property sold by a guardian on a minor's behalf without court sanction can be validly repudiated by the minor within a reasonable time after attaining majority.
