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 Kerala government wanted to acquire land in Ernakulam district for an "Infopark" project, and appointed the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Cochin Refineries Limited (K.R.L.) to act as the "Collector" for this acquisition. The appellants, whose land was being acquired, challenged this in the Kerala High Court, arguing that this officer's 1989 appointment as "Collector" only applied to a separate, specific 320-acre acquisition for the Cochin Refineries expansion, not to the new Infopark land. The High Court dismissed their challenge, reasoning that technical objections shouldn't stop acquisitions needed for a public project.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court and allowed the appeals. It held that the 1989 notification appointing the Special Tahsildar (LA), K.R.L. as "Collector" was limited strictly to land already notified for the Cochin Refineries expansion, and did not give him blanket authority to act as Collector for all future acquisitions in Ernakulam district. The Court also held that only the State Government, not the District Collector, has the power under Section 3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act to appoint someone as "Collector," so the District Collector's 2005 order assigning this officer to the Infopark acquisition was invalid. The Court emphasized that when a citizen's property (a constitutional right under Article 300A) is being acquired, the State must strictly follow the prescribed legal procedure: public interest does not justify taking a "liberal" view of such requirements. The High Court's orders were set aside, though the ruling was limited to benefiting only the appellants before the Court, not other landowners who had already accepted awards without objection.
When the government appoints an official to act as "Collector" for a land acquisition, that authority is strictly limited to the specific purpose and land named in the appointment notification: it cannot be stretched to cover unrelated acquisitions, and courts will not excuse procedural shortcuts in land acquisition merely because the project serves the public interest.
