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 order arises out of the decades-old M.C. Mehta PIL (W.P.(C) No. 4677 of 1985) concerning decongestion of Delhi, including unauthorised industrial and commercial use of residential premises, under which a Monitoring/Judicial Committee has long overseen sealing and regularisation of illegal conversions. In this application, an individual sought de-sealing of a shop-cum-residence property (Plot No. 106, New Rajinder Nagar Market, roughly 89 sq. yards) relying on a common order passed by the Court-appointed Judicial Committee, while the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) had separately challenged that very Committee order.
Reviewing the site's lease and freehold documents, the Court found that only the ground floor of the property was permitted for commercial use, and that the applicant had failed to establish any lawful basis for commercial use of the upper floor: the conveyance deed itself showed the upper-floor construction was approved only for residential purposes. Since the sanctioned Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for commercial use had been exceeded and non-compoundable deviations existed on the upper floors, the Court rejected the application to de-seal the premises and rejected the request to use the upper floors commercially. It directed the MCD to conduct a fresh joint inspection, issue a written order specifying the non-compoundable constructions, and quantify the conversion and penalty charges payable, giving the applicant an opportunity to comply, remove non-compoundable constructions, and pay the requisite charges before any commercial use of the upper floors could be regularised.
Property owners cannot claim a right to commercial use of premises, especially upper floors of shop-cum-residence buildings, merely on the strength of long-standing occupation or construction; actual title, sanctioned building plans, and compliance with FAR and conversion norms govern whether such use can be regularised, and courts will enforce these limits even within a decades-old ongoing environmental case.
