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 was a bona fide auction purchaser who bought certain mortgaged properties through a Recovery Officer's auction in 2010 for over Rs. 2.1 crores, after a bank obtained a recovery certificate against guarantors who had defaulted on repaying dues secured by an equitable mortgage. After prolonged litigation between the guarantors and the bank over the recovery proceedings, the Madras High Court ultimately upheld the recovery and the auction but directed the Debts Recovery Tribunal to reconsider the valuation of the properties, leaving open the possibility that the appellant-purchaser might have to pay the difference if the properties were found to have been sold too cheaply. The purchaser appealed, arguing that once an auction sale is confirmed, it should not be reopened absent fraud or irregularity.
The Supreme Court held that while confirmed court/auction sales and the rights of bona fide purchasers deserve protection, this protection is not absolute. Where credible questions arise about the adequacy of valuation or fixation of the reserve price, courts retain supervisory jurisdiction to ensure the secured asset fetched its best possible value. The Court noted that the High Court's direction did not set aside the auction or disturb the purchaser's title, but was a limited remand confined only to reconsidering the valuation question. Since the purpose of an auction is to secure the most remunerative price through fair, transparent competitive bidding, a limited valuation review does not conflict with the finality ordinarily attached to confirmed sales. The Court found no error in the High Court's balanced approach and dismissed the civil appeal, with no order as to costs.
Even after a court-supervised auction sale is confirmed, the finality of the sale does not shield the valuation process from limited judicial scrutiny: a buyer's title is protected, but courts can still direct a fresh look at whether the property fetched a fair price if genuine doubts exist about the valuation.
