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 moreIn 1967, one Iswar Chandra Pal executed a registered gift deed transferring about 20.88 acres of land to his sons and daughters, which was duly reflected in revenue records in 1969. Decades later, after amendments to the West Bengal Land Reforms Act took effect in 1989 (with retrospective effect), a Revenue Officer reopened the matter and, in 1997, declared the 1967 gift deed to be a "benami" (sham) transaction, which increased the land treated as surplus and liable to vest with the State. The appellants (the gift deed's beneficiaries/their legal heirs) fought this through the Appellate Authority and a Tribunal, eventually succeeding before the Tribunal, but the Calcutta High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
The Supreme Court held that it was erroneous to treat a gift deed executed in 1967 as a benami transaction by applying a legal amendment that only came into force in 1989: the donor could not have anticipated a law made two decades after his death, so there was no possibility he acted to evade a future surplus-land declaration. The genuineness of a registered document acted upon in the revenue records for decades could not be reopened purely on this retrospective basis. The Court restored the Tribunal's 2019 order (which had ruled in the appellants' favour) and set aside the High Court's order. A companion Special Leave Petition raising the identical point was dismissed for the same reasons.
A retrospective legal amendment cannot be used to brand a genuine, decades-old registered transaction as fraudulent or "benami" simply because it later became inconvenient for a later statutory scheme: the transaction must be judged in light of the law and circumstances that actually existed at the time it was made.
