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 moreThe appellant-landlord's father had let out a shop in Karol Bagh, Delhi in 1975 to two tenants: a father and son running a family wool business. After the landlord terminated the tenancy and the original tenant died, the landlord filed an eviction petition against the surviving tenant (the son) alone, without impleading the deceased tenant's other son (Respondent No. 1), who was also an heir. The Rent Controller decreed eviction, but years later, during execution of that decree, Respondent No. 1 objected, claiming he was a necessary party who had never been heard. The Delhi High Court agreed with him and set aside the execution, holding the heirs inherited as "tenants-in-common" (separate shares) rather than joint tenants.
The Supreme Court held that when an original tenant dies, his legal heirs inherit the tenancy as joint tenants of a single, undivided tenancy, not as tenants-in-common with separate shares, relying on its own precedent in H.C. Pandey vs. G.C. Paul and related rulings. Because it is one tenancy shared jointly, a landlord does not need to implead every single legal heir in an eviction petition; suing the heir(s) actually in occupation is enough, and the decree binds all joint tenants. The Court also noted Respondent No.1's objection came only at the belated execution stage and he had failed to produce credible proof of continued possession. It therefore set aside the Delhi High Court's order and restored the original Rent Controller's eviction decree in the landlord's favour.
When a tenant dies, their legal heirs do not each get an independent, separate "share" of the tenancy for eviction purposes: they succeed jointly to one single tenancy, so a landlord's eviction suit against the heir(s) actually occupying the premises can bind all the heirs, even ones not named in the suit.
