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, Ramasamy (plaintiff) and Subramanian (defendant), disputed whether land their father, Sengoda Gounder, had obtained under a 1956 settlement deed was his self-acquired property or had become joint Hindu family property. The father had later executed separate settlement deeds and a will in favour of Subramanian alone. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court both held, on the evidence, that the properties were self-acquired and not blended into joint family property, dismissing Ramasamy's partition suit. The Madras High Court, however, reversed this in a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), re-appreciating the evidence and holding there had been "blending" of the property, and ordered a half-share partition.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, which only permits interference on a genuine "substantial question of law", not a fresh re-appreciation of evidence as if deciding a first appeal. The questions the High Court had framed were, at best, questions of fact, not substantial questions of law. On the merits too, the Court found no real evidence of a deliberate, clear intention by the father to abandon his separate ownership and merge the property into the joint family stock: merely residing together or jointly using loans does not amount to "blending." The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the original dismissal of the suits by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court.
A second appeal to a High Court is not a chance to re-argue the facts of a case: it is strictly limited to genuine questions of law, and a family member claiming a self-acquired property has become shared "joint family property" must show a clear, deliberate intention by the owner to give up their individual rights, not just informal family living arrangements.
