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 respondents had booked a residential villa for about Rs. 8.31 crore in a Pune housing project and paid Rs. 8.14 crore between 2012 and 2013, under an agreement promising possession by 31 December 2014. The builder failed to hand over possession by that date or at any point for nearly five years thereafter, and also did not refund the money paid. The buyers approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which ordered a full refund of the principal with 10% interest; the builder then appealed to the Supreme Court after also losing an application to the Commission for more time to comply.
The Supreme Court held that the builder was clearly deficient in service: it had committed to a possession date, repeatedly failed to meet revised deadlines (its own May 2014 schedule had promised delivery by October 2014), and still had not delivered the villa roughly five years later. Even accepting the builder's claim that the villa was now finally ready, the Court held that such an enormous delay meant the buyers could not be forced to accept the property and were entitled instead to a full refund with reasonable interest, as the Commission had ordered. The Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the Commission's refund-with-interest order, and additionally directed that the villa could not be sold or have any third-party rights created in it until the decree in the buyers' favour was fully satisfied.
When a builder causes years of unreasonable delay in delivering possession, a buyer is not obligated to accept the property whenever it eventually becomes ready: they can instead insist on a full refund with interest, and courts can protect that right by barring the builder from selling the property to anyone else in the meantime.
