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 had entered into an agreement to purchase a Delhi flat for Rs. 50 lakh from the respondents, paying Rs. 1 lakh as advance. When the sale was not completed, she sued for specific performance (a court order forcing the sellers to complete the sale), claiming she had a bank loan approved and the financial capacity to pay the balance. The Trial Court and the High Court both found she had failed to execute the formal agreement needed for loan disbursal and had not proved she actually had the funds or genuine readiness and willingness to complete the purchase, though they awarded her a refund of the Rs. 1 lakh advance with interest.
The Supreme Court held that the only real evidence of her financial capacity was a conditional loan sanction letter that was never acted upon because a required stamp-paper agreement was never executed, and that her and her husband's bare claims of having Rs. 80 lakh annual income were unsupported by any bank statements, income tax records, or other documents. The Court distinguished this from its earlier ruling in A. Kanthamani, where concurrent findings favoring the buyer had not been reappreciated: here, both lower courts had found against the buyer on facts, and self-serving oral statements alone could not establish readiness and willingness to pay. The appeals were accordingly dismissed, confirming that specific performance was rightly refused, with a separately deposited Rs. 3.5 crore (deposited under an earlier court order) to be returned to the appellant with interest.
To win a claim for specific performance of a property sale agreement, a buyer must prove actual financial capacity and genuine readiness to pay with real documents (bank statements, completed loan paperwork, etc.): bare oral claims of having sufficient funds are not enough, even if a bank had tentatively approved a loan.
