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 moreAn NGO and its president challenged Mumbai's Transferable Development Rights (TDR) scheme, under which landowners who surrender land for public use (or whose slum land is cleared) are compensated with the right to build extra floor space elsewhere, rather than with cash. The petitioners wanted the scheme curtailed in three specific railway-corridor areas and wanted an expert body set up to review the policy, arguing it worsened congestion and strain on civic infrastructure. The Bombay High Court had already examined the issue in detail, upheld the validity of the scheme (while issuing some directions on using TDR-linked revenue for parks and amenities), and the matter reached the Supreme Court by way of appeal; it also emerged that the appellant's president was himself a builder who had benefited from TDR construction and had lost an unrelated tender dispute shortly before filing this case.
The Supreme Court held that courts do not sit in appeal over legislative/policy choices on urban planning unless there is manifest arbitrariness or a breach of constitutional rights, and found no such violation here. It emphasized the separation of powers, zoning and development policy is for elected governments and local bodies to decide through a consultative process, not for courts to redesign based on one litigant's preferences. Since the High Court had already scrutinized the TDR scheme thoroughly and issued appropriate directions (such as ring-fencing TDR-related revenue for parks and amenities in the same municipal wards), the Supreme Court found nothing more was warranted and dismissed the appeal, leaving each side to bear its own costs.
Courts generally will not strike down or redesign a government's urban planning or welfare policy just because a petitioner disagrees with its wisdom: judicial review of policy is limited to cases of manifest arbitrariness or clear constitutional violation, not a general second-guessing of elected bodies' choices.
