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 property in Panaji, Goa, originally owned by Mrs. Misquita, had part of it rented to respondent Madan Waman Chodankar, who then brought in the "Maliks" as sub-lessees for a hardware business. The original owner later sold the entire property to M/s Rizvi Estate and Hotels Pvt. Ltd., and the appellant, Tahir V. Isani, subsequently purchased the property from Rizvi Estate in 2007 through a registered sale deed. When a decree obtained by the respondent against the Maliks (in a separate suit to which neither Rizvi Estate nor the appellant was a party) was sought to be executed against the property, the appellant filed objections under Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 CPC as the property's bona fide owner. The Executing Court had begun an enquiry into these objections, but years later the respondent applied to discontinue the enquiry, relying on Order XXI Rule 102 CPC (which bars objections from a person who purchased property during the pendency of the suit from the judgment-debtor). The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) allowed the respondent's application and closed the enquiry, prompting this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the bar under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC applies only to a transferee who traces title from the judgment-debtor (here, the Maliks) and acquired the property during the pendency of the very suit whose decree is being executed. Since the appellant's title flowed instead from the original owner via Rizvi Estate and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. : a third party never impleaded in the suit between the respondent and the Maliks. The appellant was not a "transferee pendente lite" of the judgment-debtor, and Rule 102 could not bar his objections. The Court also found that the respondent's decade-long delay in seeking to discontinue the enquiry, after having earlier participated in it without objection, undermined the belated application. It therefore set aside the High Court's order, allowed the appeal, and directed the Executing Court to resume and conclude the enquiry into the appellant's objections on their own merits.
A bona fide purchaser of property who derives title independently, not through the losing party (judgment-debtor) in a lawsuit, cannot be barred from raising ownership objections in execution proceedings merely because the purchase occurred while an unrelated suit involving the property was pending; courts will also look unfavourably on attempts to belatedly derail a long-pending inquiry after having earlier participated in it.
