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 moreDelhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) acquired land for a metro project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, with an award on compensation passed in 2011. After the 2013 Act came into force, the landowners argued before the Delhi High Court that because a large share of the compensation hadn't been deposited with the beneficiaries, they were entitled to the more generous compensation formula under the 2013 Act's Section 24(2) proviso. The High Court agreed and DMRC appealed to the Supreme Court, along with several similarly-situated appeals.
The core legal question was whether the proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act (which revives entitlement to 2013-Act-level compensation when most landowners haven't been paid) applies only to awards made 5+ years before the 2013 Act commenced, or also to awards made more recently under Section 24(1)(b). The Supreme Court held, after an extensive review of principles of statutory construction of provisos, that the proviso is tied exclusively to Section 24(2) and only kicks in where the underlying award is 5 years or older; it cannot be imported into Section 24(1)(b), which governs more recent awards. Since DMRC's award was passed within 5 years of the 2013 Act's commencement, the proviso did not apply, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the appeals were allowed.
Under Indian land acquisition law, whether landowners can claim enhanced compensation under the newer 2013 Act depends critically on how old the original compensation award is: a 2013-Act "escape valve" for underpaid landowners applies only to older (5+ year) awards, not to every case where payment is incomplete.
