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 respondent (plaintiff), who owned certain properties in Kozhikode, Kerala but lived in Mumbai, had given her brother (the 1st defendant/appellant) a power of attorney (PoA) in 1998 to manage the properties. The brother later executed registered sale deeds in 2007 transferring the properties to two other relatives (the 2nd and 3rd defendants), claiming the PoA authorised him to sell. The sister sued, alleging the PoA she signed only granted limited management powers and that the "sale" clauses in the version her brother used (a notarised photocopy, not the original) had been fraudulently added later, pointing to mismatched letter-spacing between the added words and the rest of the document as proof of tampering. The Trial Court and, ultimately, the High Court (in a second appeal) ruled in her favour, while the first-level appellate court had sided with the brother; the brother and his co-defendants then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the disputed PoA (Exh. B-2) was only a notarised photocopy, not the original, and that a party relying on such a copy as "secondary evidence" must first legally establish the right to rely on it (e.g., by proving the original was lost or explaining its absence) before its contents can even be considered: a two-step, conjunctive requirement that was never satisfied here. The Court held that merely marking a document as an exhibit does not prove its contents, and that courts should not compare disputed signatures themselves without an expert's assistance, criticising the First Appellate Court for having done exactly that. Since the foundational requirements for secondary evidence were not met, the photocopy PoA was legally "no evidence" at all, meaning the presumptions under Section 33 of the Registration Act and Section 85 of the Evidence Act (which apply to duly proved documents) could not be invoked in the brother's favour. The Court agreed with the High Court that the First Appellate Court had wrongly relied on this inadmissible photocopy, and upheld the finding that the 2007 sale deeds were void for want of valid authority.
A photocopy of an important legal document like a power of attorney cannot simply be treated as valid evidence: the party relying on it must first prove, through proper legal procedure, why the original is unavailable and that the copy is genuine, before courts will act on its contents; skipping this step can invalidate transactions built on that document, however old or seemingly settled.
