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 moreTwo brothers, Ramesh Chand (defendant) and Suresh Chand (plaintiff), disputed ownership of a Delhi property that belonged to their father, Kundan Lal. Suresh Chand claimed he acquired the property from his father through a General Power of Attorney, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt, and a registered Will, all dated 16.05.1996, and sued for possession, treating Ramesh Chand as a mere licensee/trespasser. Ramesh Chand contended the property had been orally transferred to him in 1973, that he had lived there continuously since, and that he had since sold half the property to a third party. The trial court and, eventually, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff.
The Supreme Court held that none of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff (Agreement to Sell, GPA, Affidavit/Receipt, or even the registered Will) conferred valid title, because under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, ownership of immovable property worth more than Rs. 100 can only pass through a registered sale deed. An Agreement to Sell and a GPA merely create rights to seek performance or authorize an agent to act; they don't transfer ownership. The Will was also not legally proved: Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act require at least one attesting witness to be examined, which was never done, and the Court found the Will "surrounded by suspicious circumstances" since it excluded three of Kundan Lal's four children without explanation. The plaintiff also could not invoke Section 53A (part-performance) since he was not in possession of the property. The Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit, while protecting the bona fide purchaser's (second defendant's) rights to the extent of the appellant's share.
Documents like an Agreement to Sell, a General Power of Attorney, or an Affidavit/Receipt, even when notarized or registered, do not by themselves transfer ownership of immovable property; only a duly registered sale deed does. A Will, similarly, must be formally proved in court through an attesting witness, not simply relied upon because it was registered.
