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 moreLand in villages near Faridabad, Haryana was acquired by the State under notifications issued between 1986 and 1995 for purposes including a green belt, educational/medical facilities, and residential/commercial development. The landowners disputed the compensation fixed by the Collector and the Reference Court, and after earlier rounds of litigation (including a prior remand by the Supreme Court), the Punjab and Haryana High Court fixed compensation at varying rates per square yard for the different notifications. Both the landowners and the State appealed to the Supreme Court: the landowners seeking higher compensation, the State seeking a reduction.
The Supreme Court found no merit in the State's appeal for a reduction, since the State had not produced any fresh evidence to challenge the High Court's valuation. On the landowners' side, the Court agreed with the High Court's base valuation of Rs. 435 per square yard for the 1986 notification (based on comparable nearby land values from precedent cases), but held that the annual escalation rate the High Court applied for the later notifications (1992 and 1995) was too conservative given the area's rapid urban development. It raised the cumulative annual increase from the High Court's rate to 12% per annum, resulting in enhanced compensation of Rs. 860 and Rs. 1,210 per square yard for land acquired under the 1992 and 1995 notifications respectively.
In land acquisition compensation disputes, courts will look at the real pace of urban development and comparable land values in the surrounding area to fix a fair annual escalation rate, rather than mechanically applying a lower standard rate that doesn't reflect how fast prices actually rose in that locality.
