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' land (about 1.48 acres across two khasra parcels in village Sahaul, Gurgaon) had been acquired, and they sought its release on the ground that it fell within "Lal Dora" (village habitation) land, relying on a letter from Haryana's Finance Minister permitting release of such land. A High Powered Committee rejected the request, holding that possession had already been taken pursuant to a 2004 award and handed over to the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), and the High Court upheld that rejection.
The Supreme Court held that the State's claim of having taken possession was not legally sound: merely recording "symbolic possession" on paper does not amount to possession taken "in accordance with law," relying on its earlier ruling in Raghbir Singh Sehrawat v. State of Haryana. It set aside both the High Court's judgment and the High Powered Committee's order rejecting release. Since the appellants should get treatment similar to another landowner (Millennium Industries) if their land is indeed in Lal Dora, but the Court found it could not conclusively determine that factual question from the pleadings before it, it remanded the specific "is this land Lal Dora" determination back to the High Powered Committee, directing that the appellants' request not be rejected on the ground of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, that a decision be made within three months (with personal cost liability for Committee members in case of delay), and that the status quo on possession continue meanwhile.
For a government authority to lawfully treat acquired land as "possessed," it must take genuine, lawful possession, not just a token or "symbolic" paper entry, and courts can set aside land-release rejections based on such symbolic possession while sending only the remaining factual question back for a fresh, time-bound decision.
