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 bank offered the borrower (first respondent) a One Time Settlement of its dues for Rs. 542 lakhs, on condition that the mortgaged property not be sold for three years, and that if sold within that period, the bank would get 50% of the increase in the property's fair market value. The borrower paid the full settlement amount after entering into an agreement to sell half the mortgaged property to a third party, but the bank refused to release the mortgage, claiming it was entitled to 50% of the fair market value because a third-party interest had been created. The High Court directed the bank to accept the settlement payment and release the property, and the bank appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the OTS terms restricted only the actual "sale" of the mortgaged property within three years, not merely the creation of a third-party interest such as an agreement to sell. Since the three-year lock-in period had already expired (on 01.03.2015) without an actual sale having taken place, the bank had suffered no loss and had no legal basis to claim a share of the increased fair market value. Finding no error in the High Court's view, the Court dismissed the bank's appeal and directed it to release the title deed and hand over possession of the mortgaged property to the borrower within two weeks, with no order as to costs.
In settlement agreements with banks, the precise wording of restrictive conditions matters: a clause restricting "sale" within a lock-in period does not automatically extend to an agreement to sell or other third-party arrangements, and a bank cannot claim recompense for a loss it has not actually suffered.
