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 Delhi Development Authority (DDA) and the Government of NCT of Delhi had initiated land acquisition proceedings years earlier, but the landowner (Islamuddin) never received compensation and possession of the land was not taken. The Delhi High Court held that the acquisition had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act (which revives old acquisitions where compensation was unpaid or possession not taken for five years). The DDA appealed, arguing mainly that the writ petitioner had no "locus standi" to seek this declaration because he had purchased the land after acquisition proceedings began, relying on an earlier Supreme Court ruling (Star Wire (India) Ltd. v. State of Haryana) that such post-notification transfers are void.
The Court held that in Delhi, the statutory restriction on transferring acquired land only kicks in after the Section 6 declaration is published, not merely after the initial Section 4(1) notification, and since the transfer to the writ petitioner here occurred before the Section 6 declaration, it was not void, so he did have standing to challenge the acquisition. Since it was undisputed that compensation had never been paid, the Court agreed the landowner was entitled to a declaration under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, and dismissed both the DDA's appeal and the connected Delhi Government appeal. However, taking into account the peculiar facts, the Court gave the appellant authorities one year to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings under Section 11 of the 2013 Act; if no fresh notification issued within that year, the authorities (if in possession) would have to return physical possession to the owner. No costs were awarded.
A landowner cannot be denied the right to challenge a stalled land acquisition merely because they purchased the land after the acquisition process began: the key legal cutoff in Delhi is the formal Section 6 declaration, not the earlier Section 4 notification; and authorities who sit on an acquisition without paying compensation or taking possession risk having it declared lapsed, though courts may still give them a limited window to restart the process properly.
