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 Muslim family property dispute arose between the children of a man's first wife (represented by the appellant, Smt. Ajambi, as the deceased defendant's legal representative) and the children of his second wife, Roshanbi (the plaintiffs), who sued for partition claiming a 7/8th share. The defense relied on an unregistered 1958 memorandum (Ex.D7) showing the family patriarch, Shaikaji, had already divided the property between his two sets of children during his lifetime, with revenue records later reflecting the split into two plots. The first Appellate Court accepted this document and dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, but the Karnataka High Court reversed that finding in second appeal, holding the document was invalid because it was unregistered and belatedly produced, and that there is no concept of Hindu-style "joint family" property under Muslim law.
The Supreme Court held that the lower Appellate Court was correct to rely on Ex.D7, even though a Muslim family has no joint family concept, it was open to Shaikaji to arrange and distribute his own property among his children during his lifetime to avoid future disputes, and that arrangement was accepted, acted upon, and reflected in revenue records dividing the property into two separate plots. The Court found the High Court erred in doubting the document's genuineness, especially since the plaintiffs filed their suit more than 25 years after the arrangement was made. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the lower Appellate Court's decree in favour of the defendant.
A family property arrangement made and genuinely acted upon during a person's lifetime (reflected in revenue records and long acquiescence by the family) can be upheld even if the document recording it was never formally registered: courts will look at conduct and the passage of time, not just registration formalities, especially when a claim is raised decades later.
