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 2004 the Haryana Government notified acquisition of about 912 acres near Gurgaon for an industrial township. While the acquisition was pending, private builders began buying the same land directly from farmers at low prices, exploiting the farmers' fear of losing land to acquisition at even lower compensation. Shortly before the final award was to be announced, the State abruptly dropped the acquisition, and the builders then obtained licences to develop the very same land for private housing projects. 117 affected landholders filed a writ petition alleging the entire acquisition-and-withdrawal sequence was a deliberate fraud to benefit builders, which the High Court had dismissed.
The Supreme Court found a clear pattern: the acquisition notification was used as a coercive device to frighten landholders into selling cheaply to builders, after which the State conveniently withdrew the acquisition once the builders had secured the land, and then readily granted them development licences. The Court held this amounted to an "unholy nexus" between the government machinery and private builders and that the decisions to drop the acquisition were not a bona fide exercise of power but a fraud on power, designed to enrich builders/middlemen at the landholders' and the public's expense. The Court allowed the appeals, set out detailed restitutionary directions (including recovery of unjust enrichment from middlemen/builders, protection and rehabilitation for landholders and bona fide third-party purchasers, and a CBI investigation into the money trail), while leaving certain subsidiary factual/claim-verification matters to be worked out by the State authorities and the High Court.
A government acquisition process cannot be manipulated as a pressure tactic to push citizens into distress sales and then abandoned once private parties have benefited: courts will treat such an exercise of power as a "fraud on power" and can order restitution even years after the transactions occurred.
