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 moreNagpur Improvement Trust had acquired 44.61 acres of the respondent's land in 1953 for a drainage/sewerage scheme, paying compensation. The respondent later applied for re-allotment of the land, and in 1982 the Trust allotted her only 24 acres (not the full 44.61 acres) on a revised premium, which she accepted, took possession of, and was eventually leased in 1989. She then sued the Trust for re-allotment of the remaining 20.61 acres, claiming the acquisition had never genuinely been needed for the Trust's scheme, and the trial court and the first appellate/High Court proceedings eventually went in her favour, decreeing that she be allotted the balance land.
The Supreme Court held that once the respondent accepted the 1982 allotment letter offering only 24 acres on revised terms, took possession of that land, and operated under the resulting lease without protest for years, she could not later turn around and claim an entitlement to the remaining 20.61 acres on the same original application: the acceptance of a partial allotment superseded her earlier request for the whole parcel. The Court found no material to show the Trust had acted arbitrarily or in bad faith in allotting only 24 acres, and held the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree granted by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. It set aside the High Court's judgment and dismissed the suit in its entirety, while noting it did not need to separately decide the limitation question raised by the appellate court since the claim failed on merits regardless.
When a person accepts a government or statutory authority's offer on specific, reduced terms and acts on that acceptance (taking possession, paying dues, entering a lease), they generally cannot later revive and enforce their original, larger demand as if the acceptance never happened.
