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 appellants were farmers whose land near Jintur town, Parbhani District, Maharashtra was compulsorily acquired in the 1990s for an industrial area under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, they sought a reference under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was only partly allowed, and their further appeal was dismissed by a Single Judge of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench). They then approached the Supreme Court by special leave, arguing that the courts below wrongly ignored the highest comparable land-sale price available on record while fixing compensation.
The Supreme Court held that the Reference Court had erred by disregarding, without giving reasons, the highest genuine sale exemplar (dated 31 March 1990) that was available and by instead averaging a set of lower-value sale instances whose prices varied too widely for averaging to be legally permissible, averaging is only allowed when comparable sale prices show marginal variation. Since the acquired land was in a prime location near a state highway and town, the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the highest exemplar sale value, subject to a reasonable 20% deduction to account for the acquired land being a much larger, undivided plot compared to the smaller comparison plots. The Court allowed the appeals, set aside both the High Court and Reference Court orders, and enhanced compensation from Rs. 32,000 to Rs. 58,320 per acre, along with statutory solatium and interest.
In land acquisition compensation disputes, courts should generally rely on the highest bona fide comparable sale price available (adjusted with reasonable deductions for scale/location differences) rather than mechanically averaging dissimilar sale instances: landowners should press for and scrutinize how comparable sales are selected and weighted when compensation is fixed.
