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 dispute traced back to a common ancestor, Pillappa, whose descendants sued for partition of joint family properties in 1987. The trial court and the Karnataka High Court had both rejected the defence's claim that an earlier, unregistered family settlement (a "palupatti") and two registered release deeds had already validly divided the property, on the ground that these documents were not "acted upon" or were technically deficient. The legal heirs of the original defendant (P. Anjanappa) appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that both lower courts erred. It ruled that the two registered release deeds, once proved and unchallenged in cross-examination, took effect immediately and did not need to be independently "acted upon" to be valid: a registered release by a family member for consideration is presumed valid unless rebutted. It further held that even an unregistered family settlement document (the palupatti) is admissible for the limited purpose of proving that the family had actually separated and to explain how the parties lived and dealt with property afterwards, especially when corroborated by decades of separate possession, separate residence, and independent property dealings. Applying these principles, the Court recalculated the shares, held two relatives had validly relinquished their claims, and substituted a fresh preliminary decree with specific fractional shares (8/21 each to two main branches, 1/21 to each other branch).
In Indian family property disputes, a validly executed registered release deed operates immediately and cannot be defeated merely because it wasn't specifically "acted upon" afterward; and even an unregistered family settlement can still be used as evidence of an actual, lasting separation if the family's real-life conduct (separate homes, separate dealings with the land) backs it up.
