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 Review Petition was filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) seeking recall of an earlier order that had refused to clarify whether the Court's 2019 ruling in Tarsem Singh-I (holding that landowners whose land was acquired under the National Highways Act are entitled to solatium and interest, benefits earlier denied to them because a special provision excluded the ordinary Land Acquisition Act) applied prospectively or retrospectively. A batch of connected appeals from the Bombay and Chhattisgarh High Courts, where courts had directed time-bound payment of interest and solatium to landowners, was tagged along with this review petition since their outcome depended on it.
The Court declined to reopen its earlier ruling on the ground that NHAI's rising financial liability could not by itself justify review, holding that constitutional guarantees of just compensation cannot be made contingent on the size of the fiscal burden. However, it clarified the practical scope of its earlier judgments: landowners whose compensation claims were still pending on or after 28.03.2008 can claim interest, solatium and interest on solatium; those who raised such claims after that date, despite their case being alive, will not get interest for the period of delay in raising the claim; and those whose cases had already concluded before 28.03.2008 with no pending appeal cannot reopen final decisions at all. The review petition was disposed of on these terms, and the tagged appeals were allowed, with the High Courts' orders remanded for recalculation of the compensation strictly per these directions, while clarifying that landowners already paid need not refund any amount.
A final judgment that has attained finality cannot be reopened merely because a later, more favourable legal interpretation emerges: landowners who let their compensation claims go unchallenged for years lose the right to revive them, underscoring the importance of pursuing legal remedies without inordinate delay.
