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 sought to use a favourable High Court judgment (passed in an appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, which had enhanced compensation for some landowners) as the basis to ask the Collector to re-determine his own compensation under Section 28A of the Act: a provision that lets landowners who did not separately litigate "piggyback" on a court's enhanced award. The core legal question was whether Section 28A's three-month window to seek such re-determination runs from an appellate court's judgment (High Court/Supreme Court) or only from an "Award" of the Reference Court (the trial-level court that first decides compensation disputes).
The Supreme Court held that Section 28A's redetermination mechanism applies only to an "Award" passed by the Reference Court under Part III of the Act, not to judgments of appellate courts (High Court or Supreme Court) delivered under Section 54, which falls under a different part (Part VIII) of the Act. It relied on its own precedent (Jose Antonio Cruz Dos R. Rodriguese and Bharatsing) confirming this settled legal position, while clarifying that if the case is still pending in appeal before higher courts, the Collector should wait for the final appellate verdict before acting on a Section 28A application tied to the Reference Court's award. Since the appellant was seeking redetermination based on the High Court's appellate judgment rather than the Reference Court's original award, he was not entitled to the relief sought, and the appeal was dismissed with no costs.
A landowner wanting the benefit of a higher compensation award secured by other landowners under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act must base that claim on the trial-level Reference Court's award, not on a later appellate court's judgment: the right under Section 28A does not extend to High Court or Supreme Court enhancement judgments.
