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 appellant managed a government-aided primary school in Kerala and sought to close it under the Kerala Education Act, 1958, after education authorities initially refused permission. After protracted litigation (including an earlier Supreme Court order and a contempt case), the State's Chief Minister decided in June 2016 to take over the school (along with three others) under Section 15 of the Act, a decision ratified by the Council of Ministers and the Kerala Legislative Assembly, followed by a formal takeover notification. The appellant challenged the takeover, arguing the school had already been closed by the time of takeover and that any acquisition should instead have followed the central Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, making Section 15 of the state law repugnant and void. Both a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court rejected these arguments, leading to this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the Chief Minister's decision to take over the school was made on 07.06.2016, before the school's closure had actually taken legal effect, so the premise that an already-closed school was being taken over was factually incorrect. On the legal question, the Court held that the Kerala Education Act, 1958 and the 2013 land acquisition law operate in entirely different fields, so Section 15 of the Kerala Act is neither overridden nor repugnant to the 2013 Act; compensation for a takeover under Section 15 is separately fixed at market value as of the date of notification, satisfying the constitutional right to property under Article 300A, and an aggrieved owner has a further right of appeal to the District Court over the compensation amount. Finding no infirmity in the High Court's rulings, the Supreme Court dismissed all three connected appeals.
A state's power to take over and run a privately-managed aided school under its own education law is distinct from, and not displaced by, the central land acquisition law, so long as the state law independently provides for market-value compensation and an appeal mechanism: citizens challenging such takeovers should check the specific compensation and appeal provisions in the governing education statute rather than assuming the general land acquisition law must apply.
