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 moreCIDCO had allotted a plot in Navi Mumbai to a developer for construction, with a contractual clause imposing additional lease premium if construction was delayed beyond the agreed timeframe. After the developer finished one wing of the building, CIDCO sent a demand of over Rs. 14 crore in additional lease premium as a precondition for issuing the "No Dues Certificate" needed for an occupation certificate, which a subsequent purchaser of part of the building (the respondents) needed to occupy their premises. The Bombay High Court quashed CIDCO's demand letter and directed issuance of the No Dues Certificate, and CIDCO appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed that CIDCO's demand letter, as worded, was not sustainable because it failed to properly engage with the developer's claim of timely completion of construction and did not give adequate reasons for the amount demanded. However, instead of simply upholding the quashing outright, the Court held the appropriate course was to remit the matter to CIDCO itself to redetermine, after giving the developer a fair opportunity to produce its completion documents, whether any additional premium was actually due. To balance the interests of the bona fide flat purchasers in the meantime, the Court fashioned an interim mechanism: on deposit of Rs. 3.5 crore (as provisional additional premium) with CIDCO, a provisional No Dues Certificate would issue so that the purchasers could secure their occupation certificate, with the final liability to be determined afterward and refunded or recovered as the outcome required. The appeal was allowed in part strictly on these terms, without the Court expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of how much premium was actually owed.
Courts can craft practical interim balancing arrangements, rather than an all-or-nothing outcome, to protect innocent third parties (like property purchasers) caught in the middle of a dispute between a public authority and a developer, while still sending the core factual dispute back to be properly re-decided.
