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 moreLand was notified for acquisition in 1995 for a Freight Complex at Narela under the Planned Development of Delhi, with the urgency provisions invoked to dispense with the normal objection-hearing process. The landowners' earlier writ petitions, filed in 1996, were withdrawn in 2012 with liberty to challenge a fresh order rejecting their request for de-requisition of the land, and fresh writ petitions followed. The Delhi High Court quashed the acquisition, holding it had lapsed because physical possession had never been taken, as per Section 24(2) of the 2013 land acquisition law, prompting DDA's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court first noted that the governing question on Section 24(2) "lapsing" had already been authoritatively answered by a three-judge bench in Indore Development Authority vs. Shailendra, which meant the High Court's basis for quashing the acquisition could not stand. On the merits, the Court held that invoking the urgency provisions (dispensing with the Section 5A inquiry) was justified given the genuine public-purpose need for planned development and that the de-notification requests had been properly considered and rejected by the competent authority with due application of mind. The Court also observed that the landowners had engaged in prolonged delaying tactics across 16 years of litigation. It therefore set aside the High Court's judgment, allowed DDA's appeals, and dismissed the landowners' writ petitions, with no order as to costs.
A finding that land acquisition has "lapsed" for want of possession under Section 24(2) is not automatic: it must be read alongside the Supreme Court's settled law on that provision, and urgency-clause acquisitions for genuine public projects will be upheld where due process was in fact followed, even after decades of litigation.
