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 moreIn 1985, the Gujarat government acquired about 33,387 square metres of non-agricultural land in Mehmedabad, Kheda district, for the Gujarat Housing Board's residential construction purposes. The Special Land Acquisition Officer initially fixed compensation at just Rs. 4.50 per square metre; this was raised to Rs. 45 by the Reference Court (with statutory solatium, severance charges and interest) and further to Rs. 53 by the Gujarat High Court. The landowners' legal heirs appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the compensation was still inadequate, relying on two comparable transactions near the acquired land: a 1985 allotment at Rs. 65 per square metre and a sale deed from the same period valuing adjoining land at Rs. 152.37 per square metre.
The Supreme Court examined the two exemplar documents relied upon and found the sale deed (Exhibit 53) related to genuinely adjoining land, making it a valid comparable, but adjusted its value downward by 30% to account for the land that a developer like the Housing Board would need to set aside for infrastructure/development, yielding a rate of about Rs. 107 per square metre. Cross-checking this against the mean of the two exemplar values (Rs. 65 and Rs. 152.37, averaging Rs. 108.68), the Court found the two calculations closely aligned, confirming Rs. 53 per square metre as fixed by the High Court was too low. The appeal was allowed in part, with compensation refixed at Rs. 107 per square metre, while retaining the other statutory benefits (solatium, severance charges, interest) as previously ordered, to be paid within three months.
In land acquisition disputes, courts determine "fair" compensation by comparing genuinely comparable nearby land transactions around the same time as the acquisition, adjusting for factors like the land a developer must set aside for development, rather than relying solely on the acquiring authority's own initial valuation.
