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 moreBirla Super Bulk Terminal (now part of Ultra Tech Cement) was allotted industrial land near Doddaballapur by the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) to build a cement storage and packing facility. When it sought building-plan approval from the Bangalore International Airport Area Planning Authority (a town-planning body), the Authority levied a betterment fee and road charges of over Rs.1.48 crore. The company challenged this levy, arguing the special industrial-area law (KIAD Act) should override the general town-planning law (KTCP Act) and that the Planning Authority had no power to charge such fees on land already allotted by KIADB; the Karnataka High Court's Division Bench agreed and struck down the fee, reversing a Single Judge who had upheld it.
The Supreme Court held that the KIAD Act (governing industrial area development) and the KTCP Act (governing town planning) operate in different, non-overlapping fields and must be read together, so the Planning Authority's power to approve building plans and levy betterment charges under the KTCP Act survives even on land allotted under the KIAD Act. It found the High Court's reasoning self-contradictory, allowing the Authority to scrutinise building plans but denying it the power to charge fees for that function, and noted the company had never objected to the Authority's jurisdiction to levy the fee when it first replied, only to the rate and location basis, and other allottees had already paid similar charges without objection. The Court restored the Single Judge's decision, set aside the High Court's Division Bench ruling, and directed the company to pay the full betterment fee with interest (6% if paid within two months, 12% thereafter).
Where two laws govern different aspects of the same land (here, industrial allotment versus town planning), both regulatory authorities can validly exercise their separate powers over the same property, and a party that does not challenge an authority's jurisdiction at the first opportunity cannot later contest it merely because it dislikes the outcome.
