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's father, a displaced person who had left land in Sindh (now Pakistan) after Partition, had been allotted about 40.4 standard acres in Hyderabad in 1954-56 against his verified claim of 83.11 acres, and he never objected to this allotment during his lifetime. Decades later, in 2003, his son approached the Chief Commissioner of Land Administration (CCLA), Andhra Pradesh, claiming the "balance" of the verified claim, and was allotted a further 19.26 acres. The State government challenged this fresh allotment, and the dispute reached the Supreme Court after the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside the allotment, holding that the CCLA had no authority to make it and that the land had already been transferred out of the Central Government's compensation pool to the State.
The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the fresh allotment, agreeing that the CCLA, who only held appellate/revisional powers as a delegate of the Central Government, had no power to allot land, since only a "Managing Officer" could do so under the governing 1954 Act. The Court also held that once evacuee land had been transferred to the State Government (effective 1 June 1980), the Central Government's delegate could no longer allot it, though it clarified (differing slightly from the High Court) that such transferred land remains part of the compensation pool until displaced persons are first settled. Separately, the Court held that the son's claim was time-barred in substance: his father's verified claim had been finally satisfied by the 1954 allotment, he never disputed it in over three decades, and the "successor-in-interest" rule (Rule 86) only helps someone whose predecessor never got to file a claim at all, not someone reopening a settled claim decades later.
A quasi-judicial allotment order that goes unchallenged for decades becomes final; heirs cannot revive a settled land claim merely by calling it a "balance" claim, and only the specific statutory authority empowered to allot land (not every delegate exercising appellate powers) can validly do so.
