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 moreShree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd. (SRUIL) was building a high-rise residential tower (54-56 floors) in Mumbai along with a public parking lot (PPL), the construction of which under Regulation 33(24) of the Development Control Regulations entitled it to incentive floor-space index (FSI) once the parking facility was handed over to the Municipal Corporation. A dispute arose over whether SRUIL had obtained valid ("deemed") permission to build the PPL's upper floors, and separately over the adequacy of the fire-safety "refuge area" approved for the residential tower by the Chief Fire Officer and Municipal Commissioner. An NGO, Janhit Manch, filed public interest litigation challenging the Municipal Corporation's orders, and the Bombay High Court had held that no deemed permission had accrued for the PPL, prompting cross-appeals to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that SRUIL had in fact obtained deemed permission for the PPL's upper floors under Regulation 6(4) of the DCR, since the Corporation failed to respond to SRUIL's 2011 request within the stipulated time, and therefore set aside the High Court's contrary finding on this point. On the refuge-area issue, the Court held it was not an expert body to second-guess the Chief Fire Officer's technical determination (which had been reviewed and confirmed by three successive Municipal Commissioners), and found Janhit Manch's belated objections, raised years after construction had progressed, appeared driven by rivalry rather than genuine public interest; it therefore upheld the Municipal Commissioner's 2016 order on the refuge area. The Court dismissed all of Janhit Manch's PILs and transferred cases, while directing the Corporation to take over the PPL and decide the status of the residential tower's upper floors (44th to 56th) within one month.
Courts will give weight to a competent technical regulator's (here, the Chief Fire Officer's) considered and repeatedly-reviewed safety determination over a public interest litigant's unsubstantiated objections, especially where those objections are raised belatedly after years of construction; and a "deemed permission" can legally accrue under planning regulations if the municipal authority fails to respond to an application within the prescribed time.
