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 moreRandhir Kaur had agreed in 2004 to buy land from the defendants, paying Rs. 13,50,000 as earnest money through her son and power-of-attorney holder, Dhanwant Singh, with the sale deed registration fixed for January 30, 2005. When the defendants did not complete the sale, she sued for specific performance. The trial court and first appellate court both ruled in her favour, but in a second appeal the High Court reversed this, holding that Dhanwant Singh was not properly authorised to act for her and that she had not personally appeared as a witness, and instead awarded her only a refund of the money paid with interest.
The Supreme Court held that a High Court's power in a "second appeal" under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act (and the pre-1976 version of Section 100 CPC, which applies in Punjab and Haryana) is narrow: it can only intervene for an error of law, not simply to re-weigh facts already found by the lower courts, however persuasive a different view might seem. Applying this, the Court found the first appellate court's factual findings, that Randhir Kaur was ready and willing to perform the contract, and that the defendants knew of and accepted payment from her son/attorney Dhanwant Singh, were not legally unsustainable, so the High Court had no jurisdiction to overturn them. The Supreme Court also noted that since January 30, 2005 was a Sunday, the next working day (January 31) was the valid legal deadline, on which date Dhanwant Singh did appear with the balance payment. It therefore set aside the High Court's judgment, restored the decree for specific performance, and gave the appellant two months to pay the balance sale consideration.
A High Court hearing a "second appeal" generally cannot reverse factual findings made by the courts below just because it disagrees with them: its power is limited to correcting genuine errors of law, which protects litigants from having a case they've already won on facts re-litigated on appeal.
