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 moreThe dispute concerned a plot of land in Malad, Mumbai that had been declared a slum in 1987 and was reserved in Mumbai's Development Plan as a Recreational Ground (RG). Over roughly three decades the land passed through multiple owners and developers, including the appellant, Jyoti Builders, which had implemented a slum rehabilitation scheme on an adjoining larger property that included this plot, rehousing 34 slum dwellers whose hutments stood on it. In 2015, the CEO of the SRA had passed a detailed (and unchallenged) order holding that the plot was liable to be compulsorily acquired under Section 14 of the Slum Act for the benefit of the slum scheme, with the owner to be paid compensation. Despite this, in 2022 the plot's owner (respondent No. 5) sold it directly to a private developer (respondent No. 4, Alchemi Developers), and the appellant's requests to actually implement the 2015 acquisition order and to get its Occupation Certificate went unheeded, leading it to seek a writ of mandamus, which the Bombay High Court declined.
The Supreme Court held that the State Government's power to acquire slum land under Section 14 read with Section 3D(c)(i) of the Slum Act is subject to any preferential right of the original owner to redevelop the land themselves, so the appellant could not compel the State to acquire the plot via mandamus as a matter of right. However, since the appellant had already generated and used the equivalent FSI (floor space index) for the rehabilitation component covering the slum dwellers on this very plot and had completed its sale-component construction, the Court held it had effectively already been compensated for the land through that FSI benefit, and was entitled to receive its Occupation Certificate for the completed sale building upon handing over a demarcated "Dark Green Portion" reserved as Recreational Ground. Crucially, the Court directed that the private developer who had purchased the plot (Alchemi Developers) and its successors must never construct anything on it: the land must remain solely a Recreational Ground, as originally reserved in the Development Plan, since the plot was never actually part of any sanctioned construction scheme.
Land reserved for public purposes such as a Recreational Ground cannot be diverted to private construction merely because it changes private hands, or because a slum-redevelopment scheme once touched the surrounding area: a builder who has already been compensated through development rights elsewhere cannot demand compulsory acquisition of adjoining reserved land as an entitlement, and courts will actively enforce a public-purpose land reservation against a subsequent private purchaser.
