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 lived on the second floor of a residential building in Hauz Khas, New Delhi, where the ground, first, basement and mezzanine floors were taken over by a large Pathological Lab/Diagnostic Centre run in the name of a "Nursing Home." The appellant repeatedly complained to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), police, and electricity authorities about illegal commercial use, generator sets, parking congestion and pollution, but the MCD instead granted a Regularisation Certificate in 2006 to the lab's owners. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition/appeal, holding the dispute was a private one and not a matter for its writ jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to treat this as merely a private dispute, because illegal use of residential premises for a large, polluting commercial lab affects public health and the rule of law, the litigation qualified as public interest litigation even though brought by one resident. On the merits, the Court found the MCD's Regularisation Certificate legally unsustainable: it was issued for a "Pathological Lab" while its own conditions referred to a "Nursing Home," it was granted with retrospective effect under a Master Plan (MPD-2021) that was only at the proposal stage at the time, and the lab exceeded its permitted area and violated pollution-control requirements (no consent obtained from the Delhi Pollution Control Committee). The Court quashed the Regularisation Certificate and directed the lab's owners to shut down and relocate within four weeks, with MCD to seal the premises if they failed to comply.
A single resident can maintain a public interest petition against illegal, polluting commercial activity in a residential area, and a government authority's "regularisation" of an illegal use cannot override statutory planning and pollution-control requirements: courts will look past paperwork labels to the real facts on the ground.
