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 belonging to the first respondent had been acquired decades earlier (award of 1979), and his earlier attempts to challenge the acquisition and the award itself had failed in the High Court and civil court. When the respondent later sought de-notification of the land under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the Government of NCT Delhi rejected the request in a cryptic order claiming the DDA had already taken possession in 2006. The Delhi High Court found this claim of possession unsubstantiated and remitted the matter to the DDA to decide the de-notification request afresh, prompting the DDA's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court noted that the litigation had already spanned more than three decades, that the disputed land had lain unused for about 40 years, and that both the DDA's public-purpose need and the respondent's interest had to be balanced. Rather than remanding the matter again, the Court invoked its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice and finally resolve the dispute itself. It directed that the DDA's claim be limited to 3,000 square metres (the minimum needed for a group housing scheme), with the remaining land left to the first respondent, who was also to be guaranteed access to the main road. The Court made clear that no further compensation claim would be available to either side regarding this land, and disposed of the appeals on this basis with no order as to costs.
In long-pending land disputes where remanding yet again would only prolong litigation for years, the Supreme Court can use its Article 142 power to craft a practical, final compromise between the parties rather than sending the matter back through the usual channels once more.
