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 moreBetween 1976 and 2010, the State of U.P. acquired large tracts of land in Noida/Greater Noida for planned industrial development. Many landowners earlier challenged the acquisition in writ petitions, which a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court decided in the lead case of Gajraj vs. State of U.P., granting those petitioners 64.70% additional compensation and a developed residential ("abadi") plot equal to 10% of their acquired land, a ruling the Supreme Court upheld in Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. (2015) while expressly stating it should not be treated as a precedent for future cases. The appellants here (including Khatoon), whose land was acquired in the same proceedings but who had not filed writ petitions at that time, woke up only in 2016 and sought the same relief on grounds of parity, but the Allahabad High Court dismissed their petitions following its own 2016 lead judgment (Mange Ram vs. State of U.P.).
This single judgment disposed of over 50 connected civil appeals together, with Khatoon's appeal (C.A. No. 2127 of 2018) as the lead matter. The Supreme Court held that the special reliefs in Gajraj/Savitri Devi were granted in the exercise of the High Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226, confined strictly to the specific landowners who had actually litigated in that case, and that the earlier judgment had itself clarified it was not to be used as a precedent. The Court found no basis for applying Article 14 (equality) to extend those bespoke reliefs to landowners, like the appellants, who had not filed writ petitions at the relevant time, since they were not "similarly situated" in a legally relevant sense: they had, however, already received the standard statutory compensation plus the 64.70% additional compensation available to all landowners. Finding no legal or factual basis for the claim to an additional developed plot, the Court dismissed all the appeals.
A favourable direction a court gives to specific litigants in one case, especially where the court expressly says it is not a general precedent, cannot later be claimed by other similarly affected persons simply on grounds of "fairness" or equality if they did not pursue their own legal remedy at the time: equality claims under Article 14 require genuine similarity of legal position, not just a shared underlying grievance.
