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 Punjab government issued two land-acquisition notifications on the same day in 2009: one acquiring about 192.75 acres for building a road ("Missing Link-II") near Ludhiana, and a second acquiring roughly 59 acres for a residential urban estate to resettle persons displaced by the first acquisition. The affected landowners challenged both notifications before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, arguing among other things that more land than was actually needed for the road had been taken (allegedly to develop commercial property) and that the "residential" purpose stated for the second notification was vague; the High Court dismissed their writ petitions and upheld both notifications.
The Supreme Court held that acquiring land strictly for the stated public purpose (building Missing Link-II) was valid, but found that the authorities had acquired more land than the road actually required, apparently to develop it for commercial purposes without saying so in the notification: this was not a valid "public purpose," so the notification was set aside to the extent it covered land beyond what the road genuinely needed. On the second notification (acquiring land to resettle displaced residents), the Court did not find it necessary to strike it down but gave the appellants liberty to make a representation within 30 days asking the government to reconsider whether their specific parcels could be released or substituted with other available land, directing the government to decide any such representation within two months with an open mind. The appeals were accordingly allowed in part.
A government cannot use a land-acquisition notification stating one public purpose (like a road) as a backdoor route to acquire extra land for an unstated purpose (like commercial development); any such acquisition beyond genuine need for the declared purpose can be struck down, even while the acquisition for the declared purpose itself stands.
