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 moreLandowners entered a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and gave a General Power of Attorney (GPA) to a developer, who then sold flats to buyers promising possession within 36 months. The developer missed this deadline by more than six years, prompting the flat buyers to file a consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) held the developer liable for the delay and directed both the developer and landowners to transfer title, but declined to hold the landowners jointly and severally liable for the delay compensation itself: a decision the flat buyers challenged before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that under the JDA and GPA, construction and delivery of flats were the developer's sole responsibility, with the developer contractually indemnifying the landowners against any construction-related liability; the landowners had no role in causing the delay. It found no principal-agent relationship that would make the landowners liable merely because they had granted a GPA, and distinguished the precedents cited by the appellants as not supporting their case. The Court agreed that the landowners were rightly directed (jointly with the developer) to transfer title and execute sale deeds, but upheld the NCDRC's finding that only the developer, not the landowners, must pay compensation for the delay, and dismissed the appeal.
Landowners who authorize a developer through a Joint Development Agreement and General Power of Attorney are not automatically liable for the developer's own defaults in construction and delivery: liability follows who actually controlled and caused the deficiency, as spelt out in the contract's indemnity clauses.
