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 partition dispute where a preliminary decree for partition by metes and bounds was not challenged by the appellant. At the final decree stage, the High Court found it impractical to physically divide a small, roughly 6-foot-wide pathway between the parties, and instead allowed the respondent to buy out the appellant's share in that pathway for Rs. 50,000. The appellant challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court should not have been able to modify the manner of partition at the final decree stage.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was entitled to address the practical impossibility of physically dividing a narrow pathway at the final decree stage, relying on Section 2 of the Partition Act, which allows a court to order one party to buy out another's share when physical division isn't practicable: this was not an impermissible alteration of the preliminary decree. However, the Court found that Rs. 50,000 for the appellant's total share was too low given the passage of time, and directed the respondent to pay an additional Rs. 1,00,000 on top of the amount already fixed by the High Court. The appeals were disposed of on this basis.
When physically splitting a jointly-owned property (such as a narrow strip of land) is impractical, courts can order a buy-out of one co-owner's share instead of a literal division, but the compensation amount fixed years earlier can still be revisited and increased by a higher court if it has become unrealistically low by the time of final disposal.
