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 moreThis short judgment (Civil Appeal No. 6138 of 2009) is a companion case to Civil Appeal No. 6139 of 2009 (D.N. Joshi vs D.C. Harris), decided by the same bench on the same day and turning on the identical underlying dispute: the validity of a 1949 gift deed (Hiba) by which one Akhtari Begum gifted a Haldwani house to her brother, Zamir Ahmad, who later sold it to the respondents' predecessor. The appellants (tenants in a different portion of the same property) argued the gift was invalid because physical possession was never shown to have been handed over from Akhtari Begum to Zamir Ahmad, so the respondents never validly acquired ownership and could not seek their eviction.
In the lead companion judgment (C.A. No. 6139/2009), the Court held that because the disputed property was already occupied by a tenant at the time of the gift, physical possession could not have been (and did not need to be) separately handed over: "constructive possession" passed to the donee, satisfying Mohammadan law's three essential requirements for a valid gift (declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession). It noted the donee had in fact collected rent from the tenant for years after the gift, and that a separate, earlier Allahabad High Court ruling involving the same gift deed and a different tenant had already upheld its validity (with the Supreme Court itself dismissing the SLP against that ruling in 1978). In this present, shorter judgment for the companion appeal (C.A. No. 6138/2009), the Court expressly applied the "same reasons" from the companion case concerning the "selfsame gift deed" and dismissed this appeal as well, with no order as to costs.
Under Mohammadan law, a gift of property that is already occupied by a tenant can be validly completed through "constructive possession": the donor doesn't need to physically hand over the keys when a tenant is already in possession; what matters is that the three essentials (declaration, acceptance, and delivery/constructive delivery of possession) are satisfied.
