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 seller (appellant) and buyer (respondent) entered into an agreement to sell a shop for Rs. 26 lakhs in 2007, with Rs. 4 lakhs paid as earnest money and the balance of Rs. 22 lakhs due on a fixed date when the sale deed was to be registered; on that date both parties went to the Sub-Registrar's office, but the deed was not executed. The buyer then sued for specific performance, and the Trial Court dismissed the suit, finding the buyer had failed to prove he was ready and willing to pay the balance amount. On appeal, the First Appellate Court reversed this and granted specific performance, a decision the High Court affirmed, prompting the sellers to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff seeking specific performance must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, and here the buyer could not show he actually had the capacity to pay the remaining Rs. 22 lakhs at the relevant time: he could not name the friends from whom he claimed to have borrowed money, nor produce any bank passbook, account book, or similar document to substantiate his claimed financial capacity. Since specific performance is a discretionary relief, and the First Appellate Court and High Court had failed to properly examine this capacity-to-pay issue before reversing the Trial Court, the Supreme Court agreed with the Trial Court's original finding that the buyer had not proved readiness and willingness, and set aside the orders granting specific performance. As the equitable outcome, the Court directed that the seller must refund the Rs. 4 lakh earnest money with interest (12% per annum up to the date of the judgment, 10% thereafter until paid), and that the buyer could withdraw the Rs. 22 lakhs he had deposited with the First Appellate Court along with any accrued interest.
To win a court order forcing someone to complete a property sale (specific performance), a buyer must concretely prove, with real financial records, not just verbal claims, that they always had the money ready to pay; vague claims of having borrowed from unnamed friends are not enough.
