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 respondent was allotted an industrial plot under a "Relocation Scheme" meant for businesses being moved out of residential areas, pursuant to the Supreme Court's own directions in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India. He was required to pay 50% of the revised plot cost by an extended deadline of 31 March 2001 but paid in installments later, the final installment only in July 2004, all accepted and processed by an officer of the appellant-Corporation without objection at the time. Years later, in 2008, the Corporation cancelled the allotment citing the earlier delay, even though it had in the meantime (in 2006) asked the respondent for documents to hand over possession.
Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had quashed the cancellation, holding that the Corporation's own conduct, accepting the delayed payments with interest, and later asking for handover documents, showed it had effectively condoned the delay and could not later use that same delay as a ground for cancellation. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the Corporation had failed to give any credible explanation for retaining the respondent's money for roughly half a decade without acting on the "default," and that this created equity in the respondent's favour. The Supreme Court dismissed the Corporation's appeal and directed it to re-allot the same plot to the respondent, or an alternative plot in the same or a nearby area, within four weeks.
A public authority that accepts a party's delayed performance (here, delayed payment) without objection, and continues to deal with that party as if the contract is on track, cannot later turn around and cancel the allotment by citing the very delay it had already effectively accepted.
