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 moreJ.S. Luthra Academy, a school evicted from Wakf property in Jammu, was allotted four kanals of government land by the J&K Housing Board at Rs. 8,00,000 per kanal on a 40-year lease, with 50% of the amount payable upfront. A subsequent Housing Board decision effectively allotted two of those four kanals to the Academy free of charge. The State later challenged this free allocation, leading to litigation that reached the High Court's Division Bench, which ruled against the Academy's full claim, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that while concluded government transfers should generally be protected to preserve public confidence in government dealings, a transfer that caused loss to the public exchequer without adequate consideration could not simply be allowed to stand uncorrected, especially where it did not cause irreversible harm to public interest. Finding no bad faith or high-handedness by the Academy, the Court held the fairest course was to let the allotment stand but require the Academy to pay the shortfall: the market-linked rate of Rs. 8,00,000 per kanal for the two kanals it had received without charge, plus 6% annual interest from the date of allotment, payable within three months. The Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment and restored the earlier Single Judge's judgment with this monetary modification, allowing the appeals.
When land or benefits are allotted by a government body without proper consideration, courts will try to balance protecting the beneficiary's legitimate, good-faith transaction against safeguarding the public exchequer, often by requiring the beneficiary to pay the shortfall with interest rather than cancelling the allotment outright, provided the beneficiary acted in good faith.
