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 moreEssar had built a captive jetty near Magdalla/Hazira and had reclaimed land in the area by dumping dredged earth, but had done so without the Gujarat Maritime Board's (GMB) prior permission. A rival developer, Hazira Port Private Limited (HPPL), and its sub-concessionaire sought an expansion of Hazira port's notified limits to include additional back-up land, including land Essar had reclaimed, and the Gujarat Government issued a notification in January 2016 under the Indian Ports Act, 1908 expanding those limits. Essar challenged the notification, arguing it had spent large sums on the reclaimed land and that the Government had acted in haste and without genuine public interest.
The Supreme Court held that Essar had no proprietary "right" to the reclaimed land in the first place because the land had been reclaimed without the GMB's statutory permission, and ownership of the jetty and reclaimed land legally vested in the GMB/State Government, not Essar. It found that the port-limit expansion was genuinely justified by public interest, anticipated growth in vessel traffic requiring more anchorage, customs, and security infrastructure, and rejected the argument that the Government acted with improper haste or mala fide intent merely because the GMB approved the proposal quickly. Since Essar had no private property right that the notification could infringe, and the notification was validly issued under Section 5 of the Indian Ports Act, the Court dismissed the appeal.
A business cannot claim a protected legal right over land or infrastructure it developed without first obtaining the required statutory permissions, and courts will not strike down a government's exercise of regulatory power merely because it moved quickly, so long as the decision is genuinely grounded in public interest.
