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 appellants booked a flat in a Gurgaon housing project in 2005 and took possession only in January 2015, years after the contractually promised date, after the developer allegedly changed the building's layout without informing buyers and raised various additional demands. They filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) seeking interest, compensation for delay and mental agony, and refund of allegedly excess charges. The developer countered that the appellants were not "consumers" under the Consumer Protection Act because they had leased the flat out to a tenant after taking possession, making the purchase commercial in nature. The NCDRC agreed with the developer and dismissed the complaint outright, prompting this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, whether a purchase is for a "commercial purpose" turns on the dominant intention behind the purchase, not merely on subsequent use such as leasing; the mere act of renting out a flat after possession does not, by itself, prove the buyer bought it to run a profit-making enterprise. Crucially, relying on its recent precedent in Shriram Chits v. Raghachand Associates, the Court clarified that the burden of proving a transaction was commercial rests on the party asserting the exclusion (here, the developer) and must be discharged on a preponderance of probabilities; the developer had placed no cogent material showing any profit-generating nexus. Since the NCDRC had wrongly placed this burden on the buyers and had treated the mere leasing as conclusive, its dismissal of the complaint was erroneous. The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC's judgment and restored the complaint for a full merits hearing.
A property buyer does not automatically lose consumer-protection rights just because they later rent out the property: the developer (or service provider) bears the burden of proving the purchase was made for a commercial/profit-making purpose, and doubt on that question should not be resolved against the buyer at the threshold.
