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 moreA 1964 town-planning Scheme for an area in Nagpur provided for a 15-metre internal road, but later Development Plans prepared under the state's town-planning law (in 1976, 1989 and 2001) did not show this road at all. The Nagpur Improvement Trust eventually sanctioned a building layout and construction permit for the land under the newer Development Plan, and issued notices asking tenants/shopkeepers to vacate portions of their shops to allow construction. Some tenants challenged these demolition notices in the Bombay High Court, which quashed the notices, holding that the older Scheme's 15-metre road requirement still had to be honoured until formally varied. The Trust, the land owners and developers appealed to the Supreme Court; a connected case about the Trust's later move to formally delete the 15-metre road from the Scheme was also before the Court.
The Supreme Court held that where a later Development Plan (prepared under the state Act) conflicts with an older Scheme (made under the Trust's own Act), the Development Plan overrides the Scheme, following its own earlier ruling in Manohar Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra. Since the Development Plans from 1976 onward never included the 15-metre road, and nobody had ever challenged those Development Plans on that basis, the construction permits granted consistent with the Development Plan could not be called illegal merely because they departed from the older Scheme. The Court therefore quashed the High Court's judgment and allowed the Trust/developers' appeals (except one, which was dismissed on its own facts), while directing that the objecting tenants be given the same rehabilitation treatment already agreed with other tenants. It also upheld, in the connected transfer case, the Trust's subsequent formal deletion of the 15-metre road from the Scheme, since that had been done through due process consistent with the Development Plan.
When a newer government development plan for an area conflicts with an older local planning scheme, the newer plan generally prevails: citizens and tenants who want to rely on an older scheme's provisions should challenge any newer plan that departs from it at the time it is made, not decades later when construction permits are already granted under the newer plan.
