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 moreThis matter arises from long-running litigation over land acquired by Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (MCL) for coal mining in Odisha, in which the Supreme Court had earlier (03.11.2022) issued a comprehensive judgment settling entitlements and rehabilitation/resettlement benefits for land oustees of several villages, and set up a Claims Commission to implement those directions. The Commission sought further extension of time to finalise its report on village Ratansara, while a village committee (Manikeswari Bisthapita Committee) and a group of individual applicants sought directions compelling the Commission to determine R&R benefits and decide pending cases for four villages (Tumulia, Jhupurunga, Kiripsira and Ratansara). MCL objected that the Commission had exceeded its mandate by reopening cases for 10 villages whose entitlements had already been finalised and approved by the Supreme Court, and by entertaining issues that the 2022 judgment had assigned to other authorities (such as district-level grievance mechanisms and a CBA Tribunal).
The Supreme Court held that its 2022 judgment had already conclusively settled the entitlements for the 10 villages and expressly barred any reopening of those finalised determinations; the Commission therefore had no jurisdiction to entertain fresh claims relating to those villages. It similarly found the Commission had overstepped by dealing with resettlement-site suitability and other matters that the 2022 judgment had assigned elsewhere. On the specific dispute over the calculation method for compensation in village Ratansara, which included a dissenting member's opinion within the Commission, the Court noted this issue was already pending before the Orissa High Court and directed that Court to decide it within three months, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the calculation method itself. Since the Commission's core work was thus either already finalised, transferred to the High Court, or outside its assigned mandate, the Court declined to extend the Commission's term further and dismissed the applications seeking additional directions to the Commission.
Once a court has conclusively adjudicated and approved specific entitlements or benefits through a final judgment, a subordinate body implementing that judgment (such as a claims commission) cannot reopen or expand those settled determinations: parties dissatisfied with implementation issues must pursue the specific remedy (here, the High Court) that the original judgment itself designated, rather than seeking to relitigate finalised matters.
