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 moreThree brothers inherited a jointly-owned house in Chandigarh under their father's will and later entered into a 1982 family settlement requiring unanimous written consent of all three before any one brother's share could be sold, with first preference to be given to the other two brothers. One brother (the first defendant) sold his one-third share to an outsider (the second defendant) without the plaintiff-brother's written concurrence. The plaintiff sued, alleging the sale violated the family settlement and seeking to have the sale declared void and to specifically enforce his own right to purchase the share instead. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court ruled in the plaintiff's favour, but the Punjab & Haryana High Court reversed this and dismissed the suit, holding the first defendant had, in fact, offered the share to the plaintiff, who failed to accept it in time.
The Supreme Court examined the correspondence and conduct of the parties in detail and agreed with the High Court's conclusion that the first defendant had made a genuine offer to sell his share to the plaintiff first, and that the plaintiff failed to act on it, particularly given the first defendant's precarious health and urgency to conclude the sale. The Court also rejected the plaintiff's separate argument that the sale amounted to an unlawful "fragmentation" of the Chandigarh property site under local administration rules, noting the second defendant had become a co-owner whose share had been duly transferred and mutated by the Chandigarh Administration, and that the appropriate remedy for any co-ownership grievance was a suit for partition, not invalidation of the sale. Finding no merit in the appellant's contentions, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, with each party bearing its own costs.
A contractual right of first refusal among co-owners is satisfied once a genuine, timely offer is made to the other co-owners: if they fail to act on it, a subsequent sale to a third party will not automatically be invalidated merely because formal written consent was not separately obtained; and allegations of unlawful "fragmentation" of jointly-owned property are properly addressed through a partition suit, not by voiding the sale itself.
