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 held a minor-mineral mining lease that had expired in November 2010 and was later renewed by the State of U.P. in April 2013 for a further three years, with the State's support, on the footing that an earlier Government Order restricting such renewals after 31 May 2012 did not apply to his case. A public interest litigant challenged this renewal before the Allahabad High Court, which passed an interim order halting the appellant's excavation, holding the renewal inconsistent with its own earlier rulings (Nar Narain Mishra and Sukhan Singh) that no pending lease application could be granted or renewed after 31 May 2012 except through e-tender/e-auction under a different chapter of the Rules.
The Supreme Court held that the April 2013 renewal was issued under a State Government Order of February 2013 that had already been found, in the High Court's own binding precedents, to improperly try to carve out an exception to the 31 May 2012 cut-off, so the renewal in the appellant's favour was invalid regardless of the State's support for it. The Court relied on established mining-law principles (from Hind Stone and Monnet Ispat) that no one has a fundamental or vested right to a mining lease or its renewal, that such grants are governed strictly by the rules in force at the time of disposal, and that public interest in conservation of mineral resources overrides private economic interest in continued exploitation. It also declined to go into a separate, later cancellation order dated 22 October 2014, holding that question could be raised separately if needed. The appeals were accordingly dismissed, the Supreme Court's own earlier interim stay was vacated, and the State was directed to assess and recover from the appellant any pecuniary benefit gained from excavation carried out during that interim stay period.
No one has a vested or fundamental right to the renewal of a government mining lease: such renewals must strictly follow the mineral rules and policy directives in force at the time of the decision, and benefiting financially from mining under a court's interim stay carries the risk of having to disgorge that benefit if the stay is later vacated.
