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 son claimed he had paid for a shop out of his own money and from borrowed funds, but had it registered in his elderly father's name at the father's request. When the son later sued for a declaration of ownership and to cancel a sale deed his father had executed in favour of a tenant, the defendant argued the suit was barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988, which bars a "real owner" from suing to recover benami property. Both the trial court and the Rajasthan High Court agreed and rejected the plaint itself at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, without any trial.
The Supreme Court held that whether the transaction fell within the statutory exceptions to Section 4 (for instance, where the person in whose name the property stands holds it in a "fiduciary capacity" for the real owner) is a mixed question that needs evidence, and cannot be conclusively decided merely from the bare averments in the plaint at the Order VII Rule 11 stage. Relying on its earlier ruling in Marcel Martins v. M. Printer, the Court explained that a plaint can only be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) if it is barred "without any doubt" on its own averments, and reasoned that the son's claim of a confidential/fiduciary arrangement with his father was arguable and required a full trial. It therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of both lower courts, restored the suit, and directed the trial court to dispose of the long-pending (since 2006) suit within six months.
Courts cannot short-circuit a civil suit at the earliest stage merely by invoking the Benami Act if the plaintiff's own pleaded facts raise an arguable case that the property is held in trust or in a fiduciary capacity for him: such disputed factual questions must be tested through evidence at trial, not dismissed outright.
