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 appellant's 0.15-acre land with 45 pomegranate trees in Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh, was acquired in 1990 for the Telugu Ganga Project's Kandelara Reservoir. The Land Acquisition Officer valued each tree at a low rate, and on reference, the Senior Civil Judge and later the High Court enhanced the value per tree to Rs. 65 using a multiplier of 9 (based on a 1992 Government Order), but the landowner argued even this was too low compared to the applicable 1989 valuation and a later Supreme Court case awarding Rs. 3,000 per tree for a different, more recent acquisition.
The Supreme Court held that the Reference Court and High Court erred in relying on the subsequent 1992 Government Order (which fixed the rate at Rs. 65/tree) when the relevant valuation in force on the date of the 1990 acquisition notification was actually Rs. 75/tree per a 1989 Horticulture Department letter; however, it upheld the multiplier of "9" (based on a 12-year fruit-bearing period for 3-year-old trees) as correctly applied. It also declined to apply the Rs. 3,000/tree rate from a 2016 Supreme Court decision, noting that case concerned a much later (1999) acquisition award, and seven years' difference in timing materially affects what a fruit tree's value would have been. Balancing these facts, the Court fixed compensation at Rs. 2,000 per pomegranate tree, plus statutory benefits like solatium and interest, partly allowing the appeal.
In land acquisition compensation disputes, courts value trees/crops based on the valuation rates and notifications actually in force on the date of acquisition, not later Government Orders, and compensation amounts from other cases are not automatically transferable where the timing of acquisition differs significantly.
