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 moreRam Singh obtained a 1980 consent decree declaring him owner of 52 kanals of land that his uncle Bhagwana said he had given him under a family settlement. Bhagwana's daughters, Phool Patti and Phool Devi, later sued claiming the land was ancestral, that there was no real family settlement, and that the 1980 decree was a collusive device for an unregistered, unstamped gift. The First Appellate Court and the High Court both rejected the daughters' challenge and upheld the decree in Ram Singh's favour, and the matter reached the Supreme Court, where an earlier two-judge bench had flagged an apparent conflict between two of the Court's own precedents on when a court decree concerning property requires compulsory registration: a conflict a three-judge bench later resolved by holding there was no real inconsistency, sending the appeal back for final decision on merits.
The Supreme Court held it was now bound by the earlier finding that the 1980 consent decree was not collusive, and by the three-judge bench's ruling that there was no conflict between the relevant precedents (Bhoop Singh and K. Raghunandan), so those issues could not be reopened. On the merits, relying on Bhagwana's own testimony that 20 kanals were his self-acquired property and 32 kanals were ancestral, the Court found that the 32 ancestral kanals passed to Ram Singh under a genuine family settlement (which did not require registration under Section 17(2)(vi) of the Registration Act), but the 20 self-acquired kanals were gifted to Ram Singh and, since this created a fresh right in immovable property, required compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(a) which had not occurred. The Court also held the daughters could not raise a fresh challenge to the validity of that gift at this late stage since no pleading or evidence on that specific point had ever been placed on record, and accordingly allowed the appeal only in part, in the manner so indicated, with no order as to costs.
A family settlement over ancestral property can validly pass title without registration, but a gift of self-acquired immovable property worth more than Rs.100 must be registered to be legally effective, and courts will not entertain a brand-new factual challenge (such as disputing a gift's validity) raised for the first time on appeal without any pleadings or evidence to support it.
