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 moreCivil Appeal Nos. 13132-13141 of 2017 (arising from Manoj Kumar's group of appeals against the State of Haryana), was the lead matter in a large batch of connected land-acquisition appeals from Haryana. Land had been acquired near Jagadhri for a planned urban development, and a dispute arose over the compensation rate: the State wanted the compensation reduced, while the landowners wanted it increased. The Punjab & Haryana High Court had set the rate by directly following an earlier case ("Swaran Singh") involving a different, nearby plot, adding a 15% cumulative annual increase.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in mechanically following the Swaran Singh valuation without independently examining whether that case's land and transaction were truly comparable, and without applying the ordinarily required deduction for development costs when valuing large undeveloped tracts. The Court surveyed decades of its own precedent on how to use comparable sales and prior awards as evidence, concluding that such comparisons are never binding by themselves and must be weighed afresh with proper deductions in each case. It found a flat annual increase of 10-12% (not a 15% cumulative increase) was appropriate, applied further deduction for development, and recalculated compensation at Rs. 95 lakhs per acre (down from the High Court's Rs. 1.46 crore per acre). The State's appeals were partly allowed and the landowners' cross-appeals for a still-higher rate were dismissed.
Courts valuing acquired land cannot simply copy the compensation rate fixed in another, superficially similar case; each acquisition's compensation must be independently assessed on its own evidence, with standard deductions for development costs: a nearby precedent is only one piece of evidence, not a binding shortcut.
