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 moreThree connected appeals arose from NCDRC orders against Parsvnath Developers (and its affiliate) in disputes involving flat buyers at the "Parsvnath Exotica" project in Sector-53, Gurgaon. The NCDRC had earlier ordered the developer to complete construction, obtain the Occupancy Certificate, hand over possession, and pay 8% annual interest as compensation for delay, along with rebates and litigation costs. The developer appealed all three orders to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn or reduce these directions.
The Court held that failure to obtain an Occupancy Certificate before offering possession amounts to a "deficiency in service" under the Consumer Protection Act, relying on precedents including Arifur Rahman Khan v. DLF Southern Homes and Debashis Sinha v. R.N.R. Enterprise, and that a purchaser cannot be forced to accept possession without the mandatory statutory certificate. Given the prolonged delay and repeated non-compliance, the Court found the NCDRC's award of 8% annual interest as compensation was fair and reasonable, along with the ancillary directions on rebates, litigation costs, and stamp duty. All three appeals were dismissed, the NCDRC orders were affirmed, and the developer was directed to obtain the Occupancy Certificate and hand over possession within six months, continuing to pay compensation until then.
A builder cannot lawfully hand over possession of a flat without first obtaining the statutory Occupancy Certificate, and failing to do so is treated as a "deficiency in service" that entitles buyers to compensation under consumer protection law, even after years of litigation, courts will hold developers to this obligation rather than let possession be forced through without it.
