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 moreA plot in Kolkata had been requisitioned by the government since 1979; when the owner challenged the prolonged requisition, the Calcutta High Court in 1993 directed the authorities to either formally acquire the land within six months or release it. After considerable delay, a fresh land acquisition notification was issued in 1996. The owner challenged this fresh notification too; a Single Judge dismissed the challenge (while warning the authorities could face contempt proceedings over the earlier delay), but a Division Bench on appeal quashed the acquisition altogether, prompting the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench had erred in treating the authorities' earlier delay in complying with the 1993 order as fatal to their independent statutory power to acquire the land afresh in 1996. It held that a validly exercised statutory power of acquisition is not "stifled" by an earlier, unrelated court order, that the doctrine of res judicata did not bar the fresh acquisition, and that remedies for the earlier non-compliance (such as contempt proceedings) are a separate matter from the validity of the new acquisition itself. The Court set aside the Division Bench's order and restored the Single Judge's order upholding the acquisition; the appeal was allowed.
A government authority's delay or even non-compliance with a past court direction does not permanently extinguish its independent statutory power to acquire land later through a fresh, properly conducted process: the appropriate remedy for such delay is a separate proceeding (like contempt), not invalidation of an otherwise valid later acquisition.
