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 Lucknow Development Authority (LDA) had acquired land for a residential scheme in 1981, and when the respondent's unutilised share of that land was later restored to him under Section 17 of the UP Urban Planning and Development Act, LDA demanded over Rs. 1.57 crore combining acquisition cost and development charges. The Allahabad High Court quashed LDA's demand for development charges, holding there was no evidence of actual development work benefiting the respondent's specific plot, and also imposed costs on LDA.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had misread the record: LDA's own data showed 97.1% of the total acquired land in the scheme had been developed with roads, electricity, water and sewer lines, and the correct legal test is whether the broader acquired area (not just the individual plot) was developed, since area-wide infrastructure benefits the whole scheme. On that basis, the Court set aside the High Court's finding that no development charges could be levied. However, it separately found that the specific amount of Rs. 1.57 crore had been quantified without giving the landowners any hearing, so it set aside that demand letter too, granting LDA liberty to recompute and communicate the charges lawfully, while preserving the landowners' right to seek remedies under the 2013 land acquisition compensation law.
When land is restored after acquisition, development charges are properly assessed by looking at whether the larger acquired scheme area was developed, not just the individual returned plot, but even a legally valid charge must still be quantified and communicated after giving the affected person a fair hearing.
