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 moreIn 2008 the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) notified a large layout development scheme ("Dr. K. Shivaram Karanth Layout") under the Bangalore Development Authority Act, affecting many landowners around Bangalore, who were to be offered either developed plots or cash compensation. Over the following years, acting on political and Assembly pressure, the State Government ordered large chunks of land (several hundred acres) excluded from the acquisition, and affected landowners went to the High Court, arguing that the Authority's long delay in finalising the acquisition meant the original notification had lapsed and they should be free to develop their land themselves. The High Court's Single Judge and Division Bench both ruled largely in favour of the landowners, prompting the BDA and State to bring this batch of appeals (and dozens of connected appeals over the same scheme) to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the "lapse after five years" rule, which applies to a final land-acquisition notification, could not be stretched to apply to this preliminary notification. It found that the proposed exclusions of land had been engineered through undue influence on officials rather than genuine re-examination of the scheme, and that allowing them would reward landowners and officials who had acted improperly. It set aside the High Court's orders, upheld the original scheme and notification, and directed the State Government and BDA to issue the final notification without further delay. It went further and appointed a retired High Court judge as an independent Inquiry Officer to investigate and fix responsibility on the officials involved in trying to improperly exclude land from the acquisition, with a report to be submitted back to the Court.
A preliminary land-acquisition notification does not automatically lapse through administrative delay the way a final notification can under the statute's own time limit, and courts can step in, including by ordering an independent inquiry, where evidence suggests a public development scheme is being quietly undermined through official or political influence.
