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 moreTwo individuals had entered a 1982 partnership deed to jointly develop land in Hyderabad, with a clause stating that if either partner died, their legal heirs would automatically step in as partners. One partner (the appellants' predecessor) later obtained a civil court decree against the other partner, restraining her from obstructing the land development and directing her to sign the necessary layout documents. After both original partners died, the decree-holder's heirs tried to execute this decree against the heirs of the other, deceased partner, who objected that the decree could not bind them since they were never actually partners themselves.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 42(c) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, a partnership with only two partners is automatically dissolved by operation of law the moment one partner dies, regardless of what the partnership deed itself says about heirs "automatically" becoming partners. Since the respondents were never actual parties to the partnership, the decree obtained against their predecessor could not be enforced against them under the legal principle of "privity of contract," and any clause purporting to bind third-party heirs to the partnership obligations was void and against public policy. The Court distinguished this from an earlier precedent (Prabhakara Adiga) involving a decree for permanent injunction over heritable rights, since the relief claimed here went well beyond what the original decree had granted. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' finding that the decree was not executable against the respondents.
A private contract clause cannot override a statutory rule, even if a partnership deed says heirs will "automatically" step into a deceased partner's shoes, the law itself can dissolve a two-person partnership on death, and heirs who were never actual parties to the original agreement cannot be forced to honor a court decree obtained against the person they inherited from.
