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' land was acquired and the Land Acquisition Officer fixed compensation at Rs. 11,000 per cent, which the Reference Court declined to enhance despite the appellants relying on sale-deed evidence (a comparable plot, "A4") showing a higher value nearby. The appellants, whose original party had since died (leading to a procedural abatement that the Court first set aside to allow their legal heirs to continue the case), pressed only the A4 comparable before the Supreme Court, while the State argued the acquired land was low-value wetland.
The Supreme Court held that the A4 land, sold for Rs. 17,250 per cent shortly before the acquisition notification, was a valid comparable despite being in a Panchayat (rather than Municipal) area, since it was in close proximity, abutted the same main road, and the acquired land (shown by the High Court's own findings to be reclaimed dry land, not wetland) was actually in the more valuable Municipal area. The Court rejected the High Court's reasoning that the original landowner's exaggerated court testimony (about road frontage) should disqualify the A4 document as a comparable, holding that documentary land value evidence should not be discarded merely because a witness's conduct or demeanour was unfavourable. It fixed compensation at Rs. 17,250 per cent plus statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and allowed the appeals with no costs.
In land acquisition compensation disputes, solid comparable-sale documents should be judged on their own objective merits (location, proximity, road access) and not thrown out simply because a witness presenting them was personally unconvincing or exaggerated an unrelated point.
