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 appellant had entered into a 1977 agreement to purchase a flat ("Shalimar Apartments," Kolkata) from the respondent for Rs. 95,000, paying Rs. 90,000 and taking possession, with the balance Rs. 5,000 payable on execution of the conveyance deed. When the respondent neither accepted the balance nor executed the conveyance despite repeated requests, the appellant filed a suit for specific performance. The respondent did not contest the proceedings at any stage (trial court, High Court, or Supreme Court), and the suit went ex parte; the trial court dismissed it on the ground that the appellant failed to prove the respondent's title to the property, and the Calcutta High Court affirmed. Notably, no formal issue on the respondent's title had ever been framed, so the appellant argued he was never put on notice that he needed to prove title.
The Supreme Court, after appointing an amicus curiae since the respondent remained unrepresented throughout, held that although formal framing of issues is not strictly mandatory in an ex parte suit under Order XIV Rule 6 CPC, a judgment even in a default/ex parte case must still comply with Order XX Rule 4 CPC by identifying "points for determination" and giving reasoned answers: merely granting or refusing a decree by default is a "material irregularity." The Court laid down the test: omission to frame an issue vitiates the trial only if it caused actual prejudice, judged by whether the parties knew a particular question was in controversy and had the opportunity to lead evidence on it. Applying settled law on specific performance (a valid contract, breach by the defendant, and the plaintiff's readiness and willingness), the Court found the appellant had established these essentials, but was never given notice or opportunity to prove the respondent's title, since no issue or pleading on title had ever been raised. It therefore held the trial court's judgment defective under the CPC, set aside both lower courts' orders, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh trial with issues properly framed and evidence-led opportunity for both sides.
Even when a case is decided ex parte because a defendant chooses not to appear, courts cannot decide the dispute on an issue neither party pleaded nor had a chance to present evidence on: a judgment, default or otherwise, must be reasoned and address the actual points genuinely in controversy between the parties, or it risks being set aside on appeal.
