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 1973, the appellants' shares in a mining company (originally Bikaner Gypsums Ltd., later Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Ltd.) were compulsorily transferred to the State Government of Rajasthan. Disputing the fairness of the valuation, the appellants sued in 1978, and after decades of litigation (including a court-appointed valuer, multiple rounds before the Calcutta High Court, and an earlier remand by the Supreme Court itself) the share value was finally fixed at Rs.640 per share. By the time this appeal reached the Supreme Court, only one issue remained: what rate of interest the State should pay for the roughly 50-year delay in paying the appellants their due compensation.
The Court held that where a decree involves payment of money and there is no contractual interest rate, Section 34 of the CPC governs, and courts have discretion (guided by fairness and equity, not mechanical application) to fix a reasonable rate for the period before suit, during the suit, and post-decree. It rejected the appellants' demand for 18% interest with quarterly rests as excessive and punitive, noting interest is compensatory (for the "time value of money"), not a penalty. Balancing the extraordinary 50-year delay and the fact that the entire burden fell on the State exchequer, the Court fixed simple interest at 6% per annum from 8 July 1975 until the date of the decree, and 9% per annum from the decree until actual payment, to be paid within two months.
When the government (or anyone) delays paying money it legally owes you, courts will compensate you with interest for the lost "time value" of that money, but the interest rate must be reasonable and equitable, not punitive, and is fixed case-by-case rather than at whatever rate the claimant demands.
