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 moreNOIDA sought to acquire land in a Ghaziabad-area village in 1989-90 for a residential complex, roads, a bus depot and a green belt, invoking the urgency provisions of the Land Acquisition Act to dispense with the normal inquiry process. The landowners challenged the acquisition in the Allahabad High Court, which initially restrained NOIDA from dispossessing them, but NOIDA went ahead and built a City Bus Terminal on the disputed land regardless. Decades later, the High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's own earlier ruling in a related case (Daya Ram Tyagi) that had already quashed the same acquisition notifications for other affected landowners, quashed the notifications for these petitioners too, and ordered NOIDA to pay them twice the fair market value of the land or restore possession by demolishing the construction.
The Supreme Court agreed the High Court was right to quash the acquisition notifications, since the identical notifications had already been held illegal in Daya Ram Tyagi for invoking emergency powers improperly. On NOIDA's argument that it shouldn't have to pay enhanced compensation and that the landowners hadn't proven title, the Court noted NOIDA had gone ahead and built a public bus terminal on land it knew was under active litigation and an interim restraining order, behaviour it called deserving of criticism, while the landowners had produced documentary title deeds that NOIDA failed to rebut. The Court upheld the High Court's "moulded" relief (double market-value compensation in lieu of demolition) as just and proper on these specific facts, dismissing NOIDA's appeals, while clarifying this compensation formula would not automatically apply to other landowners under the same notification.
A government authority that proceeds to build on disputed land in defiance of a court's interim order, instead of waiting for the litigation to conclude, exposes itself to being ordered to pay enhanced compensation rather than simply walking away from an illegal acquisition.
