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 brother and sister disputed inherited family property in Aurangabad, Maharashtra, left by their father who died without a will. The sister sued for partition and separate possession, claiming her share under Muslim inheritance law; the brother claimed the property was his own self-acquired asset under a registered sale deed. The trial court dismissed her suit, but the District Judge reversed this on first appeal and decreed partition in her favour; the brother's further second appeal to the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) was dismissed in limine (at the very admission stage, without a full hearing) for allegedly raising no "substantial question of law."
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed a jurisdictional error by dismissing the second appeal outright, because the case did raise substantial questions of law under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code: specifically, questions turning on interpretation of documents regarding whether the property was self-acquired or inherited. The Court set aside the High Court's order and remanded the matter, directing the High Court to formally admit the second appeal, frame the specific substantial questions of law, and decide the appeal afresh on its merits. The Supreme Court expressly clarified it was not expressing any opinion on who actually owns the property, confining itself only to whether the High Court was right to reject the appeal without a proper hearing, and also gave the siblings liberty to pursue an amicable family settlement before the High Court.
A High Court cannot summarily throw out a second appeal at the admission stage if it genuinely involves a substantial question of law (such as interpreting title documents): it must first frame that question and give both sides a proper hearing; failing to do so is itself a legal error that the Supreme Court can correct, even without deciding who ultimately wins the underlying property dispute.
