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 appellant, developer of a residential redevelopment project in Bandra, Mumbai, received an Environmental Clearance (EC) in 2013 when its construction area was about 32,395 square metres. It later expanded the project further to 40,480 square metres by constructing sixteen additional flats, but instead of undergoing the full fresh environmental review procedure required for an "expansion" under the EIA Notification of 2006, it merely sought and obtained an "amendment" to its existing EC, which the state authority granted by simply recording the new figures without any fresh environmental impact evaluation. A local resident challenged this amended clearance before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), which ultimately held that this increase amounted to an unauthorised "expansion" requiring the full EC procedure, directed the appellant to deposit Rupees one crore with the Pollution Control Board, and set up an expert committee to study the project's environmental impact and suggest remedial measures.
The Supreme Court upheld the NGT's interpretation, holding that any increase in construction area beyond what was originally cleared qualifies as an "expansion" under the EIA Notification requiring a fresh Form 1 application and full evaluation by the Expert Appraisal Committee: a project proponent cannot be allowed to incrementally increase a project's footprint through mere "amendments" to an existing clearance without environmental scrutiny, since that would let developers grow a project from the minimum to the maximum threshold size without ever undergoing real review. The Court traced the regulatory history, noting that a 2009 proposal to exempt "marginal" expansions through self-certification was specifically rejected by an expert committee and never adopted, reinforcing that even modest-looking expansions carry real environmental consequences that deserve scrutiny. Since the appellant had already completed construction by the time of the dispute, undoing the construction was not practical, so the Court upheld the NGT's remedial approach, continuing the expert committee's evaluation and allowing it to recommend compensatory measures, rather than ordering demolition. The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Developers cannot sidestep mandatory environmental review by labelling a substantial increase in construction as a mere "amendment" to an existing clearance: any genuine expansion beyond the originally approved scope legally requires a full fresh environmental assessment, and completing construction before a legal challenge is resolved does not immunise a builder from remedial consequences.
