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 parties entered an agreement for sale of a house in 1988 for Rs.1,50,000, with part payment made upfront. Since the property was mortgaged to the education department, a further agreement allowed 15 days after redemption of the mortgage for execution of the sale deed. After redeeming the mortgage, the seller (appellant) intimated the buyer (respondent) and demanded the balance payment, but the buyer disputed that redemption had occurred and did not pay. The seller then cancelled the agreement and forfeited the earnest money, prompting the buyer to sue for specific performance, which was decreed by the trial court and upheld by two appellate courts before reaching the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the orders of the courts below. It held that the buyer's mere dissatisfaction with the seller's intimation of mortgage redemption could not substitute for proof of the buyer's own readiness and willingness to perform his obligations under the contract: a mandatory requirement for specific performance. The Court noted the buyer had since migrated to America and acted only through a power-of-attorney holder who could not depose to facts within the buyer's personal knowledge, undermining the claim of readiness and willingness. Since specific performance is a discretionary remedy, the Court found the buyer had failed to establish entitlement to it.
In a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement, the buyer must affirmatively prove their own continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations (such as paying the balance price): simply disputing the seller's claims is not enough, and relying solely on a power-of-attorney holder's testimony for personal facts can be fatal to the claim.
