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 respondent-plaintiff claimed that the appellant's late father had agreed in 1995 to sell his rights in a DDA (Delhi Development Authority) alternative plot recommendation for Rs. 4,60,000, evidenced by a short receipt-cum-agreement acknowledging part payment of Rs. 2,30,000. Both the trial court and the High Court had decreed specific performance of this agreement in the plaintiff's favour, treating the document as a valid, enforceable contract for sale.
The Supreme Court held that both lower courts had failed to properly apply the Specific Relief Act and settled precedent governing when a decree for specific performance may be granted: courts must first determine whether a genuinely valid and enforceable contract exists before ordering performance. It pointed to several facts the lower courts had overlooked: the mismatch between the agreed price and the much higher amount the defendant had actually deposited with the DDA for the plot, the suit being valued far above the agreed sale price, and critically, that the DDA's eventual lease to the defendant's family expressly made the plot non-transferable for ten years. Given this non-transferability condition alone, a decree for specific performance could never lawfully have been passed. The Court therefore allowed the appeal, set aside both lower court judgments, and directed the appellant to refund the Rs. 4,30,000 already paid by the respondent (with 6% annual interest) within two months.
A court cannot order specific performance of a sale agreement if the property itself is legally barred from being transferred (such as a government-imposed non-transferability clause): the underlying legal restriction on the property defeats the contract regardless of what the parties privately agreed.
