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 moreIn 1972, a Nashik municipal body reserved land for a school/roads and took possession of a 37-Are (3,700 sq. m.) strip without ever formally acquiring it, using it for road construction for decades while a 1978 acquisition notification covered only the remaining portion. The appellant bought the unacquired strip from the original owner in 2011 and, after prolonged litigation (including an earlier Supreme Court appeal and a contempt petition), finally forced the State to formally acquire the land in 2017, resulting in a compensation award later enhanced by a Reference Court to about Rs. 20.2 crores plus substantial rental/mesne-profit compensation for the decades of illegal occupation before formal acquisition. The Bombay High Court, on the Corporation's challenge, reduced the compensation, denied rental compensation almost entirely, made adverse personal observations against the appellant, and imposed Rs. 10 lakh in costs on him.
The Supreme Court restored the Reference Court's enhanced compensation of roughly Rs. 20.2 crores (with interest at 9% for one year and 15% thereafter until payment), holding the High Court was wrong to cut it down. It denied the appellant's claim for rental compensation for the long period from 1972 up to his 2011 purchase (since he did not own the land during that period and could not claim compensation for a period predating his ownership), but held he was entitled to interest at 8% per annum on his own purchase price (as mesne profits/compensation) from the date he bought the land (29.07.2011) until possession was formally transferred to the Corporation (08.05.2017). The Court found the High Court's adverse personal observations against the appellant and the Rs. 10 lakh costs imposed on him were unjustified, since he was merely pursuing legal remedies available to him and had produced evidence to support his claims: these were expunged and the costs waived.
A citizen who buys land already under long-term unauthorised government occupation, and then persistently pursues the legal process to force formal acquisition and compensation, is entitled to a fair enhanced award and compensation for the period of his own ownership, but not for periods before he acquired title; and courts should not penalise a litigant with costs or adverse remarks merely for pursuing statutory remedies in good faith.
