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' land was acquired for building a water filtering shed. The dispute concerned only how much should be deducted from the comparable market-value rate (based on a nearby small developed plot) to account for the larger acquired land's undeveloped state, with the High Court having applied a steep 75% deduction for development costs. The appellants argued this deduction was excessive given that the acquired land already had municipal amenities like electricity, water, roads, schools, and a nearby highway and railway station.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had fixed a fair market value of Rs. 445 per sq. meter but then failed to properly account for the significant level of development already present in and around the acquired land, electricity, water, education facilities, a national highway, and a railway station, before applying an unusually high 75% deduction. Finding no justification to depart from the ordinary judicial practice of capping such deductions at around one-third of market value, the Court limited the deduction to 33% for development costs, adding a further 10% deduction because the land fell in a "No Development Zone," for a total deduction of 44%. The appeal was allowed on this basis, with the reference court directed simply to recalculate the final compensation figure using this corrected 44% deduction.
When courts determine compensation for acquired land, the deduction applied for "undeveloped" status must reflect the land's actual surrounding infrastructure (roads, utilities, schools, transport): a blanket high deduction unsupported by the evidence of existing development can be successfully challenged and brought back to the normal one-third benchmark.
