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 moreLandowners in Mavanoor Village, Karnataka, lost land to acquisition for a railway line, initially awarded Rs. 40,000/acre by the Land Acquisition Officer. When some landowners sought a court reference and secured Rs. 2,00,000/acre, the appellants (who hadn't sought reference themselves) applied under Section 28-A of the Act for the same enhanced rate and received it. Later, when other landowners' High Court appeals further raised compensation to Rs. 3,50,000/acre, the appellants filed a second Section 28-A application seeking that higher rate too, but this was rejected on the ground that they had already accepted compensation once, and the rejection was eventually upheld by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, which held Section 28-A only applies to Reference Court awards, not appellate awards.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It held that a second application under Section 28-A is maintainable even after an earlier one has been allowed and money received, and that this extends to enhancements granted by appellate courts (High Court or Supreme Court), not just the original Reference Court award. Relying on the "doctrine of merger" and a three-judge precedent (Pradeep Kumari) over a later, per incuriam two-judge decision (Ramsingbhai Jerambhai) that the High Court had wrongly followed, the Court reasoned that Section 28-A's purpose is to ensure parity among similarly-placed landowners, so once any landowner gets an enhanced award from a higher court, others in the same position are entitled to invoke Section 28-A for the same benefit, regardless of having accepted an earlier lower enhancement.
Land acquisition compensation law is built around ensuring equal treatment among landowners whose land was taken in the same acquisition, accepting an earlier enhanced compensation payout does not stop a landowner from later claiming parity with others who subsequently secured an even higher amount through appeal.
