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 moreThis matter arose out of a batch of land acquisition compensation cases from Haryana, where the Supreme Court had earlier (11 January 2019) decided the market value payable to landowners in Civil Appeal Nos. 264-270 of 2019 (Wazir and Another vs State of Haryana) and connected matters, including the petitioners here. After that judgment, the landowners (including Hukam Singh) filed applications pointing out that the judgment contained factual errors in a tabular chart of sale deeds and, more importantly, arithmetical mistakes in calculating the per-acre compensation figures for several villages, and sought recall of the judgment.
The Court rejected the landowners' request to recall the judgment itself, holding that the tabular chart was simply reproduced from the High Court's own findings (never challenged earlier) and that an unrelated case's 8%-vs-15% interest figure had no bearing on this judgment's reasoning. However, the Court agreed that it had made genuine arithmetical errors in computing compensation (for example, an incorrect subtraction turning Rs. 48.66 lakh into Rs. 37.54 lakh instead of the correct Rs. 39.54 lakh per acre), and corrected these figures throughout the judgment for each affected village (Naharpur Kasan, Kasan, Bas Kusla, Bas Haria, Dhana, and Manesar). It also clarified that landowners who had already been paid more than their corrected entitlement must refund the excess by 30 June 2019, with 9% interest applying only if not refunded by that date. All the miscellaneous applications were accordingly disposed of, with the modified figures to be reflected in a corrected, re-uploaded version of the original judgment.
Even a Supreme Court judgment can contain genuine arithmetical slips, and parties who spot a computational error (as opposed to disagreeing with the Court's reasoning) have a limited avenue to seek correction, but a correction request is not a backdoor to reargue the merits already decided.
