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 appellants (original landowners, later represented by their legal heirs) owned plots at Jalgaon that were reserved for public purposes (a garden, library, maternity home and dispensary) under a 1974 Development Plan. They argued that since the Municipal Council failed to acquire the land within 10 years, and failed to act within 6 months of their 1986 notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, the reservation should be deemed to have lapsed, entitling them to use their land freely. The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) rejected this and dismissed their writ petitions, holding that Section 127 (which governs lapsing of Development Plan reservations) did not apply because the land had, in the meantime, come to be governed by a separate Town Planning Scheme (No. III) under Chapter V of the Act.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's reasoning, holding that Section 127 of the MRTP Act applies only to land reserved under a Development Plan (Chapter III) and has no application to land governed by a Town Planning Scheme (Chapter V), which has its own distinct, self-contained procedure, including appointment of an arbitrator, compensation determination, and government sanction, culminating in the land vesting in the planning authority under Section 88. Since the land in question had already been brought under Town Planning Scheme III in 1976 (with compensation fixed by an arbitrator as early as 1980, upheld on appeal, and the scheme finally sanctioned in 1993), the landowners' Section 127 notice and lapsing argument did not apply to it. The Court distinguished the precedent the appellants relied on (Girnar Traders) as concerning Development Plan reservations, not Town Planning Schemes. Finding no error in the High Court's judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs.
Landowners seeking to free their land from a public-purpose reservation must check which legal mechanism actually governs it: the lapsing protection available for a general Development Plan reservation does not automatically apply once the land has been brought under a separate Town Planning Scheme, which follows its own distinct acquisition and compensation procedure.
