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, a daughter of the late Major General Budh Singh, sued for partition of five family properties under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, against the legal heirs of her deceased brother. A trial court judge dismissed the suit at the threshold, without even framing issues, relying on the parties' own pleadings and a series of earlier family court decrees dating back to 1977 that had already dealt with ownership of the same properties. The Delhi High Court upheld this dismissal, and the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court traced through the family's litigation history (four earlier suits and decrees between family members from 1977 onward) and found that those decrees had already settled that the properties in question were not part of any joint Hindu family or coparcenary property available for a fresh partition claim by the appellant and her sister. Since these decrees were never challenged despite the parties' knowledge of them, and one property claim was independently barred by limitation, the Court held the appellant was bound by the earlier decrees and could not now reopen settled ownership questions. The appeal was dismissed, and the dismissal of the partition suit was upheld.
Old, unchallenged court decrees that settle ownership of a family property become final and binding, even decades later, a family member who knew of such a decree and did not contest it within the limitation period cannot revive the same dispute through a fresh partition suit.
