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 moreA wife (Thopamma) sued her husband in 1968 for maintenance and to create a charge over his properties. While that suit was pending, the husband sold two of those properties in 1974 to N.K. Giriraja Shetty. After the maintenance decree was passed in 1976 (creating a charge on the properties), Thopamma got those properties auctioned in execution of her decree and purchased them herself in 1977; Shetty's objection to the auction was dismissed for non-appearance and the sale was confirmed. Shetty then filed a fresh civil suit (concealing that his earlier objection had been dismissed) claiming ownership and possession, which the trial court dismissed but the first appellate court and High Court allowed in his favour, prompting the present appeal by the eventual purchasers from Thopamma.
The Supreme Court held that once Shetty's objection to the court auction (filed under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC) had been dismissed and the sale confirmed, Order XXI Rule 92(3) CPC barred him from filing a fresh suit raising the same grounds: the auction had attained finality. The Court also held the 1974 sale deed to Shetty was void against the maintenance charge because it was executed while Thopamma's 1968 suit was still pending, squarely attracting the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act; Shetty, a close friend of the husband, could not claim to be a bona fide purchaser without notice. It further found that the first appellate court and High Court had wrongly given findings of fraud and collusion that were never even pleaded in Shetty's suit. The Court set aside the first appellate court's and High Court's judgments, restored the trial court's dismissal of Shetty's suit, and allowed the appeal, leaving parties to bear their own costs.
A property bought from someone while a court case affecting that very property (such as a maintenance suit seeking a charge on it) is still pending is vulnerable under the doctrine of "lis pendens": the buyer takes it subject to the outcome of that case; and if a court auction sale is not successfully challenged within the law's own procedure, a litigant cannot later relitigate the same objections through a fresh civil suit.
