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 moreNandlal Das left a 1963 Will dividing his properties between charitable trust gifts and his two sons. After his death, his widow Shyama Sundari Dassi separately executed her own 1973 Will leaving her properties to her estate manager Harendra Nath Das and others, while disinheriting her younger son Pasupati Nath Das. The genuineness of this 1973 Will was contested in probate proceedings, where a Single Judge initially rejected two of the four contested issues (testamentary capacity and undue influence) against the propounders, but the High Court's Division Bench, on appeal, reversed those findings and granted probate. Pasupati Nath Das's heirs challenged that Division Bench decision before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reiterated settled law that a probate court's jurisdiction is narrow: confined strictly to whether a Will was genuinely executed, free of suspicious circumstances, and not extending to questions of title or ownership of the underlying properties, which must be litigated separately. Since only two of the four issues (testamentary capacity and undue influence) were actually in dispute before the Division Bench, and the Division Bench had found no suspicious circumstances surrounding execution (a solicitor and doctor were present, signatures appeared on every page and correction, and the Will was read and explained to the testatrix), the Supreme Court found no reason to disturb that finding. It confirmed the grant of probate and dismissed the appeal, expressly reserving all disputes over property title/ownership for separate, properly instituted proceedings, with no costs.
A probate case only decides whether a Will was validly and genuinely executed: it does not settle who actually owns the properties mentioned in it; anyone disputing ownership must file a separate title suit, since a probate order is not proof of ownership.
