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 had agreed to purchase a large plot of land with two godowns in Jaipur for about Rs. 99.8 lakh. The Income Tax Department's "appropriate authority," believing the declared price was significantly under-valued, exercised its power under Section 269UD of the Income Tax Act to compulsorily purchase the land itself at the agreed price rather than let the private sale go through. The buyers challenged this pre-emptive purchase order through a writ petition, an intra-court appeal, and a review petition in the Rajasthan High Court, all of which went against them, before approaching the Supreme Court. A connected appeal by the Union of India challenged a High Court direction on how refund/interest from the deposited sale amount should be disbursed to the buyers and seller.
The Supreme Court held that the appropriate authority, the Single Judge, the Division Bench, and the Review Court had all consistently and correctly found, based on detailed evidence including comparable sales and valuation of the godowns, that the suit land's fair market value was at least 15% higher than the price stated in the sale agreement, which justified the pre-emptive purchase under Section 269UD. The Court declined to re-examine these factual findings under its limited Article 136 jurisdiction, rejected arguments about procedural infirmities (such as non-disclosure of the godown valuation), and dismissed the buyers' appeals. On the connected appeal, the Court held that the High Court had wrongly decided how the deposited sale proceeds should be disbursed instead of leaving that question to the appropriate authority under Section 269UG(4), and set aside that part of the High Court's order, leaving the disbursement issue to be decided afresh by the appropriate authority.
When a government valuation authority compulsorily pre-empts a property sale on the ground of under-valuation, courts will not re-open settled factual findings on value unless they are shown to be arbitrary, perverse, or contrary to law, so a buyer challenging such an order must raise every factual objection (such as missing valuation reports) at the earliest possible stage, not for the first time much later.
