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 1985, Leeladhar agreed to sell 18 bighas of land for Rs. 40,000 to Deshraj, receiving the full sale consideration in two installments and handing over possession, with the agreement duly registered. When Deshraj's legal heirs later sought to get the sale deed executed, Leeladhar failed to appear, leading to a suit for specific performance. Leeladhar defended by claiming the agreement was a sham document created merely to secure an unlicensed moneylending transaction, and that he had already repaid the "loan" with interest.
The Supreme Court noted that the courts below, after a remand for fresh consideration under Section 20(2)(c) of the Specific Relief Act, had concurrently found as a fact that the document was a genuine agreement to sell and not a sham loan-security document, and that the documents Leeladhar relied on to prove repayment were only copies, undermining his claim. The Court held there was no delay in filing the suit and that the plaintiffs' possession of the land (unhurried to get the deed executed) did not disentitle them to relief. Since the agreement was genuine and full consideration had already been paid, Leeladhar could not invoke Section 20(2)(c) to resist specific performance, and the appeal was dismissed, affirming the decree of specific performance in favour of the respondents.
Once courts find a sale agreement to be genuine and consideration has already been fully paid and possession transferred, a seller cannot later escape the agreement by claiming hardship or unfairness under the discretionary bar on specific performance.
