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 appellants' father and his brothers underwent a family partition in 1974, but 7 acres of land were left out. In 1999, the appellants' grandfather filed a separate suit which was resolved by a compromise decree in 2000, dividing that 7 acres equally among the father, his five brothers, and the grandfather; the appellants (through their father) subsequently received a share of that land via a related 1998 suit decided in 2002. In 2003, the appellants filed a fresh suit seeking to have the 2000 compromise decree declared null and void, claiming the land was actually their father's separate property (not ancestral) and that they were wrongly left out of the compromise proceedings. Both the trial court and the High Court dismissed this suit.
The Supreme Court held that under Order 23 Rules 3 and 3A of the CPC, no appeal or fresh suit lies to challenge a compromise decree on the ground that the underlying compromise was unlawful: the only remedy is a recall application before the very court that recorded the compromise, which the appellants' father never filed. The Court also found no proof that the land was purely the father's separate property rather than joint family property, and held the 2003 suit was barred by res judicata and Order 2 Rule 2 CPC since it should have been raised in the earlier partition litigation. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court.
A compromise/consent decree cannot be undone by filing a brand-new lawsuit years later claiming the compromise was unfair or coerced. The law requires going back to the same court that recorded the compromise through a specific recall application, and delaying or skipping that step can permanently close off relief.
