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 brothers, Mahabalaiah and Thimmappa, partitioned their joint family property between themselves in 1940-41. After Thimmappa's death, his widow Gowramma later willed her share of the property to just one of her three daughters, prompting another daughter, Sunanda, to sue claiming her own share. The trial court and first appellate court ruled in Sunanda's favour, first under Section 10(1)(g) and then, on review, under Section 8(1)(d) of the 1933 Act: provisions dealing with property passing to a sole surviving coparcener "by survivorship."
The Supreme Court held that Section 8(1)(d) only applies when joint family property passes to a single coparcener by survivorship (i.e., no partition occurs because there's only one coparcener left), not when property is obtained through an actual partition between living brothers, as happened here between Thimmappa and Mahabalaiah, so that provision could not give Thimmappa's daughters a share. It also held Section 10(1)(g) (the "stridhana" provision) inapplicable because that only covers property a female inherits from her husband, not from her father. Instead, applying Section 4 of the Act governing succession to a Hindu male dying intestate, the Court held that the order of succession placed the widow ahead of daughters, so Thimmappa's estate vested solely in his widow, Gowramma, to the exclusion of his daughters. The appeals were accordingly allowed, the lower courts' judgments set aside, and Sunanda's suit dismissed.
Under this 1933 Mysore-era succession law, the specific legal pathway by which a female relative claims a share matters critically: a daughter cannot claim a share meant for "survivorship" situations under a provision that only applies where property passes to a sole surviving coparcener without any actual partition; succession through intestacy has its own separate order of priority that can place a widow ahead of daughters.
