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 moreThe appellant's father died in 1959 leaving a will bequeathing everything to her mother, who was granted probate of the will in 1960 while the appellant was still a minor. The appellant attained majority in 1965 but did not challenge the probate until 1996, some 36 years later and 31 years after turning 18, when she applied to revoke the probate, alleging that she should have been notified of the original proceedings and that the grant was procured by fraud. Both the District Court and the Karnataka High Court rejected her application on merits and as time-barred.
The Supreme Court held that the appellant's lack of notice (citation) at a particular location did not make the original probate proceedings "defective in substance," since she lived with and was effectively represented by her mother throughout, and received no benefit from the will anyway (her mother was sole beneficiary). It also held she had never produced any evidence of fraud, which must be specifically pleaded and proved, not merely alleged. Finally, applying Article 137 of the Limitation Act (a three-year limitation period running from when the right to apply accrues: here, from the appellant's attaining majority in 1965), the Court held her 1996 application was hopelessly time-barred, and dismissed the appeal.
Challenges to a grant of probate must be brought promptly: under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, the three-year clock starts running once the right to challenge arises (such as on attaining adulthood), and bare, unproven allegations of fraud will not revive a claim that is decades too late.
