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 moreCo-owners of an agricultural plot in Karnataka had agreed in 1981 to sell their shares to the original plaintiffs (Respondent Nos. 1 and 2), but one co-owner's widow (Respondent No. 3) later refused to execute the agreement for her 1/6th share and instead sold it to a third party (Respondent No. 4) in 1986. The plaintiffs sued for specific performance of the sale agreement; the trial court and first appellate court ruled against them, but the Karnataka High Court reversed and granted specific performance, holding the plaintiffs had been put in possession of the entire land under the original agreement. The losing party appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined whether the plaintiffs had indeed obtained possession of the entire suit land under the 1981 agreement, which was the central disputed fact. Relying on an independent 1987 injunction decree from a separate suit (O.S. No. 129 of 1984) that had already found the plaintiffs in possession of the whole property and restrained third parties from interfering, the Court held this established that the plaintiffs had in fact been put into possession of the entire land, contrary to the lower courts' view. Finding no illegality in the High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court upheld the grant of specific performance in the plaintiffs' favour, subject to their paying the sale consideration at the present market value within six months. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
In property disputes, an independent court finding on possession from an earlier, separate case can be decisive evidence in a later specific-performance suit, and once possession under a sale agreement is established, courts will enforce the agreement even years later, provided the buyer pays fair current value.
