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 moreNumerous homebuyers who had booked apartments in the "DLF Valley, Panchkula" project complained that the developer failed to hand over possession within the promised 24 months. The State and National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions ruled in the buyers' favour, ordering refunds with interest in some cases and compensation for delayed possession in others, and the developer appealed to the Supreme Court along with some buyers who also cross-appealed on the compensation amounts.
The Supreme Court disposed of this large batch of connected appeals by applying the same interest/compensation formula it had set earlier in a related case (Himanshu Arora), fixing a uniform 9% annual interest rate: payable from the date of deposit in refund cases, and only after the developer's permissible three-year construction window in possession cases. The Court worked from a jointly reconciled chart of figures prepared by the parties, corrected one buyer's miscalculated entitlement, directed a disputed claim between a deceased allottee's widow and mother to be split 3/4-1/4 pending further litigation, and sent two outlier matters (an already-settled case and one needing further hearing) for separate handling. All other appeals were finally disposed of on these agreed terms, with no additional compensation beyond what was set out.
When many similar builder-delay consumer cases arise from the same project, the Supreme Court can resolve them collectively using one uniform compensation formula based on precedent and a reconciled, agreed set of figures, rather than deciding each buyer's claim separately from scratch.
