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 moreA father executed a 1985 registered deed in favour of his daughter (Respondent No.1) over certain property. In 1993 he executed a deed cancelling that document and then sold the same property to his son (the appellant) by a separate sale deed. The daughter sued, arguing the 1985 document was a gift that had already taken effect and could not be unilaterally cancelled, while the son argued it was only a Will (revocable at any time since ownership never actually transferred during the father's lifetime). The trial court and first appellate court both accepted the son's "Will" theory and dismissed the daughter's suit, but the Kerala High Court reversed this, holding the 1985 document was a valid gift/settlement, so the later cancellation and sale to the son were void.
The Supreme Court examined whether the 1985 deed was a Will (which takes effect only on death and is freely revocable) or a gift/settlement (which vests ownership immediately and, once accepted, cannot be unilaterally cancelled). It held that delivery of physical possession is not the only way to prove acceptance of a gift, registering the document and holding the original title deed can also demonstrate acceptance, and the daughter's possession of the original registered deed showed she had accepted it during her father's lifetime. Since the gift had already been acted upon and accepted, the father had no unilateral right to cancel it, making both the 1993 cancellation deed and the subsequent sale deed to the son void. The Court agreed with the High Court that the courts below had wrongly characterised the document as a Will, and dismissed the son's appeal, upholding the High Court's ruling in the daughter's favour.
A registered deed that immediately transfers ownership (even if some rights like income or possession during the giver's lifetime are reserved) is a gift or settlement, not a Will, and once such a gift is accepted (which can be shown through conduct like registering and holding the document, not only by taking physical possession) it becomes legally irreversible and cannot be cancelled by the giver alone.
