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 appellants' land was acquired by the Government, and a Land Acquisition Collector's Award in 2003 granted them compensation. Nearly a year later, the Collector passed a "Review Award" that reduced this compensation substantially, on the ground that part of it had wrongly covered illegal structures on the land. The landowners, who only learned of this reduction years later through an RTI request, challenged the Review Award, but the Delhi High Court dismissed their challenge.
The Supreme Court held that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 contains no provision allowing a Collector to "review" an Award once it is finalised. The only corrective mechanism available is Section 13A, which permits fixing purely clerical or arithmetical mistakes, and only within six months of the Award. Here, the Collector had gone far beyond correcting a clerical error, he had substantively reassessed whether certain structures were legal, and had done so more than six months late. Citing settled law that the power of review must be expressly granted by statute and cannot be assumed, the Court quashed both the Review Award and the High Court's judgment upholding it, and restored the appellants' original compensation.
A government authority cannot "review" or substantially alter its own final decision unless a law specifically gives it that power, fixing typos or calculation errors is not the same as reopening the substance of a decision already made.
