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 moreThe Central Government requisitioned and then acquired about 4 acres of land in Hyderabad in 1970-71 to set up an Artillery Centre, initially offering compensation of Rs.2 per sq. yard. Dissatisfied landowners sought a statutory arbitrator, but the Government took about 19 years to actually appoint one after the first appointed arbitrator failed to decide the matter in time. The arbitrator eventually enhanced compensation to Rs.6 per sq. yard with 30% solatium and 9% interest, citing the Government's inordinate delay; the High Court further enhanced the rate to Rs.12 per sq. yard while upholding the solatium and interest. The Defence Estate Officer appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the 1952 Act (unlike the Land Acquisition Act, 1894) contains no provision at all for awarding solatium or interest.
The Supreme Court held that although the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 does not itself provide for solatium or interest, its own settled precedents, starting with Union of India v. Hari Krishan Khosla and followed in several later rulings, have equitably read in these benefits for landowners in cases of extensive, unjustified delay in completing requisition/compensation proceedings, as a matter of fairness even though the statute is silent on it. Given the Government's own 19-year delay in reappointing the arbitrator, the Court held this was squarely a case warranting that equitable relief, and saw no reason to disturb the High Court's enhancement of compensation or its award of 30% solatium and 9% interest. The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the landowners.
Even where a specific law (like the 1952 Requisitioning Act) does not expressly provide for solatium or interest on compensation, courts can still equitably award them to a dispossessed landowner when the government itself has caused extensive, unexplained delay in resolving the compensation dispute.
