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 appellant-Board advertised a "Riviera Towne" housing scheme in Bhopal in 2007, with an explicitly provisional advertised price, to be finalised only after the scheme's completion. After allotment and partial payment, the Board years later demanded a hugely enhanced final price, based on the District Collector's land-valuation guidelines for 2011-12, that was roughly double what allottees had anticipated. The allottees challenged this before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which ruled in their favour at both the single-judge and Division Bench stages, quashing the Board's enhanced demand entirely. The Board appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Board did have the statutory right under Section 50 of the M.P. Griha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam, 1972 and its own Accounts Rules to fix the final price only after the scheme's completion, since the advertisement itself made the initial price explicitly provisional, so the High Court was wrong to hold the Board powerless to revise the price at all. However, the Court also found that the Board's method of pegging the final price to the Collector's much higher 2011-12 market-valuation guidelines, instead of its own more moderate cost-based rules, was arbitrary, unreasonable, and failed the constitutional test of proportionality. The Court therefore struck a middle path itself: it fixed the price at the Board's own 2009 cost figure of Rs. 16,500 per sq. metre, escalated by 10% per year up to the date of demand, with 9% annual interest from the date of demand until payment.
A public housing authority can lawfully charge a buyer the "final" price only once construction is complete even if an earlier price was quoted, but that final price must still be fair and proportionate to actual costs: a buyer is not bound by an arbitrary markup simply because the advertisement reserved the Board's right to revise the price.
