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 case arose from a family property dispute in Delhi between two brothers, Raj Kumar Bhatia (appellant) and Subhash Chander Bhatia (respondent), after their mother's suit for possession against the appellant was continued by the respondent. The appellant had originally pleaded in 2003 that the property was joint Hindu family property and that an oral family arrangement governed its use; in 2016, thirteen years later, he sought to amend his written statement to elaborate this into a claim of coparcenary property with specific shares for grandchildren. The Trial Court allowed this amendment, but the Delhi High Court, acting under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, set the amendment aside after examining its merits and finding it not bona fide.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded the limits of its Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction by evaluating the merits of the proposed amendment: a power the High Court does not have when merely supervising a lower court's exercise of discretion, as opposed to sitting in appeal. The Court found that the proposed amendment was not a new case but merely an elaboration of averments already present in the original 2003 written statement (which had already pleaded joint family property and an oral family arrangement), so allowing it caused no real prejudice to the respondent and did not amount to withdrawing any admission. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and the Trial Court's original order permitting the amendment was restored.
A High Court exercising its supervisory (not appellate) jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot second-guess a trial court's decision to allow an amendment to pleadings by assessing whether the amended claim will succeed on its merits: that overstepping of a purely supervisory role is itself a ground for the Supreme Court to intervene.
