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 (plaintiff) had a registered agreement dated 4.6.2002 to buy a house property in Ranga Reddy District, Telangana, for Rs. 13 lakh, having paid Rs. 6 lakh as advance. When the sellers allegedly refused to accept the balance and execute the sale deed, he sued for specific performance and won in the Trial Court. The sellers (defendants) claimed the "sale agreement" was actually security for a Rs. 6 lakh loan they had taken from the plaintiff (an unlicensed money lender), backed by a separate Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed the same day. The High Court accepted the sellers' version and reversed the Trial Court's decree, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision and dismissed the appeal. It found that the MoU (Exhibit B-2) (purchased from the same stamp vendor, on the same date, with the same witnesses as the sale agreement) strongly supported the defence that the "agreement of sale" was really a sham document executed as loan security. The Court also held that the plaintiff had approached the court with "unclean hands" by concealing the existence of this MoU in his plaint, which independently justified refusing the equitable, discretionary relief of specific performance.
Specific performance is a discretionary remedy: a court can deny it even to a technically valid claim if the plaintiff has been less than fully honest about material facts (like a related document) that bear on the true nature of the transaction. Concealing relevant paperwork can defeat an otherwise strong case.
