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 appellants, residents of village Sohana in Mohali, Punjab, owned houses and land that the State of Punjab sought to acquire in 2000 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for a residential urban development project. The appellants' writ petitions challenging the acquisition were dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in 2011, and they appealed to the Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending, the new Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 came into force, and the appellants applied under its Section 24(2), which deems old acquisition proceedings to have lapsed in certain circumstances (such as possession not having been taken or compensation not having been paid for five years or more).
The Supreme Court examined whether the 2013 Act's lapse provision could apply to proceedings that were already the subject of a pending appeal, and relied on established principles that a repeal followed by fresh legislation does not retrospectively alter substantive rights unless the new law says so expressly, while procedural changes are presumed to apply to pending matters. Applying Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, the Court found that the acquisition proceedings concerning the appellants' land had indeed lapsed since possession had not been taken and/or compensation had not been paid within the stipulated period. It accordingly allowed the applications and the connected appeals, quashing the land acquisition notification as it applied to the appellants' land, while dismissing a separate impleadment and intervention application as not maintainable.
Landowners facing old, long-pending land acquisition proceedings can invoke the "deemed lapse" provision in the 2013 land acquisition law if the government never took possession of the land or never paid compensation within the specified period, even if their case is still pending in appeal when the new law comes into force.
