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 moreLand was acquired in 2005 in Himachal Pradesh for a cement plant project. The Land Acquisition Collector initially fixed a low compensation rate, but on a reference, the court raised it to Rs. 5 lakh per bigha after applying a 60% deduction to the market value shown in a 2004 sale deed for a very small plot of land. The High Court, hearing cross-appeals, upheld this figure without any detailed discussion of why a 60% deduction was appropriate.
The Supreme Court held that compensation cannot be fixed with mathematical precision, and that comparable sale instances must be adjusted using established positive and negative factors (size, location, proximity to roads, shape, etc.): none of which the lower courts had actually analysed before applying a blanket 60% deduction. Since many similar acquisition cases from the same project were still pending before the High Court and Reference Court, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remitted the matter for fresh consideration specifically on whether the 60% deduction was justified, directing the High Court to apply the Court's established deduction principles.
In land acquisition compensation cases, courts cannot apply a round-figure deduction to a comparable sale price without reasoned analysis of the actual differences between the compared plots: landowners can challenge an unexplained deduction all the way up.
