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 the 1980s, land in Chennai was acquired for building an inter-city bus and truck terminal, but the acquiring authority only ended up using part of the land, leaving about 16 acres undeveloped. Years later, this unused land was instead earmarked for relocating "Gunny Bag" merchants whose shops were found to be a public health hazard in residential areas. The original landowners asked for their unused land to be returned to them under Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and when this was refused, they went to the Madras High Court, which ruled in their favour and ordered the land released.
The Supreme Court held that Section 48-B of the Land Acquisition Act does not give a landowner any enforceable right to demand return of acquired land. It only gives the government a discretionary power to reconvey land if it chooses to. The Court found no evidence that the government's refusal was arbitrary, mala fide, or a colourable exercise of power, and held that mere delay in using acquired land, or the fact that it was later repurposed for another public need (relocating hazardous shops), is not a valid ground to order its return. It also rejected the High Court's interpretation that authorities could not change their mind once a reconveyance request was made. The Court set aside both the High Court's judgment and its review order, upholding the government's decision not to reconvey the land, while confirming the landowners remain entitled to the compensation already deposited for them, with interest.
Once land is validly acquired for a public purpose, a landowner cannot compel its return merely because it was not used quickly, or because it was later redirected to a different public use: judicial review of the government's discretion under Section 48-B is narrow and limited to cases of bad faith or arbitrariness.
