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, Radha Bai, claimed a share in ancestral family land through her father Saheblal, who had died in 1957, before both his own father Janakram (died 1982) and grandfather Sukhdeo (died 1965). After her mother's death, she discovered the land had already been sold by Janakram to the sons of her uncle Sonu via a registered sale deed in 1979. She sued for partition and a share in the property, but the trial court dismissed her suit, a point later confirmed by the High Court in second appeal.
The Supreme Court traced the devolution of the ancestral property under Hindu succession law: after Sukhdeo's death in 1965, the property passed equally to his two sons, who later partitioned it in 1967 so that it became the separate share of Janakram alone. Since Radha Bai's father Saheblal had died before both his father Janakram and grandfather Sukhdeo, he never actually acquired any ownership interest in the property during his lifetime, and so had nothing to pass on to his daughter. The Court distinguished the precedents cited by the appellant, noting they involved different factual situations (succession opening after the 1956 Hindu Succession Act came into force, or coparcenary property still undivided), none of which applied here since partition had already converted the property into Janakram's personal property. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
In Hindu joint family property disputes, a person cannot claim a share in ancestral property greater than what their own parent actually owned at the time of the parent's death: if the parent predeceased the ancestor through whom the property was claimed and never personally inherited a share, their children inherit nothing from that specific chain.
