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 1977, the Haryana government acquired a large tract of undeveloped agricultural land in villages Atmadpur and Mawai (district Faridabad) for a residential colony, initially paying landowners Rs.16.52 per square yard. A Reference Court raised this to Rs.22 per square yard, and on further appeal the Punjab & Haryana High Court raised it again to Rs.50 per square yard based on the land's development potential and rates for adjacent land, even though it had separately found the correct figure should be Rs.63. The landowners appealed to the Supreme Court seeking still higher compensation.
The Supreme Court held that since the High Court's own reasoning and findings supported a rate of Rs.63 per square yard, it was inconsistent and unjustified for it to have then fixed compensation at the lower figure of Rs.50. The Court rejected the landowners' alternative argument for a much higher rate (Rs.100-200 per square yard) based on rates paid for nearby land acquired a decade later, holding that compensation must be based on market value prevailing on or before the date of acquisition, not derived by discounting backward from later, unrelated acquisitions, and that the landowners had in any case filed no sale deeds to prove a higher contemporaneous value. It therefore allowed the appeals in part, fixed compensation uniformly at Rs.63 per square yard, and directed the Land Acquisition Officer to recalculate and pay the compensation (with statutory benefits like solatium and interest) within three months.
Compensation for acquired land must be fixed based on its proven market value on the date of acquisition itself: a court cannot be asked to work backward from a much later, unrelated land valuation, and a landowner who fails to produce sale deeds from around the relevant date weakens their own case for a higher rate.
