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 portion of land belonging to the appellants was sought to be acquired by the State of Haryana. Although the Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 stated the land was needed for the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Project, the appellants' counsel argued it was actually meant for a Medical College, and that the roughly 1000 sq. yard plot involved was far too small for that purpose. The appellants, who had been given small rehabilitation plots, challenged the acquisition, but the High Court appears not to have examined this specific discrepancy.
The Supreme Court, hearing the matter ex-parte without issuing notice (while giving the State liberty to approach the Court if needed), found that the High Court had not gone into the discrepancy between the stated purpose of acquisition and the small size of the land. It set aside the impugned High Court order, restored the original civil writ petition, and remitted the matter back to the High Court to re-examine the petition and decide it afresh. The appeal itself was thus allowed and finally disposed of, with no order as to costs, and the Court expressly clarified it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute.
When a land acquisition notification's stated public purpose doesn't appear to match the facts on the ground (such as plot size), courts expect that specific discrepancy to be examined on its own merits, and a higher court can send a case back for exactly that scrutiny rather than deciding the substance itself.
