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 moreThis is one of a large batch of appeals filed by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), all raising the same question of whether earlier land acquisitions had lapsed under Section 24(2) of the 2013 land acquisition law. The lead appeal, C.A. No. 8893 of 2016 (DDA vs Parmal), is explicitly listed first in the batch's caption and was disposed of along with the other connected appeals in the same order.
The Supreme Court held that the legal issue in this batch was already covered against DDA by its own earlier decision in Civil Appeal No. 8477 of 2016, and dismissed all the appeals in the batch (including this one) on that basis without re-arguing the point afresh. However, given the facts of these cases, the Court gave DDA one year from the date of the order to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings by issuing a notification under Section 11 of the 2013 Act. It clarified that if DDA failed to do so within that year, it would have to return physical possession of the land to the original owners if it was still in possession. No costs were awarded.
When a land acquisition is found to have lapsed, the authority is not left with no options: courts may give it a defined window (here, one year) to restart the process lawfully, but missing that window means the land goes back to its original owner; this same principle was applied uniformly across dozens of similar DDA cases decided together.
