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, claiming to be an owner/raiyat of land adjoining a plot that was transferred, sought a right of pre-emption under Section 8(1) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, but filed his application 17 months after the transfer. The transferees objected that the law allows such a claim (by a contiguous-land owner) only within four months of the transfer, and the trial court rejected the application as time-barred. The first appellate court reversed this, reasoning that limitation should run from the date the appellant came to know of the transfer since he was never given notice of it, but the Calcutta High Court restored the trial court's rejection on revision. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Section 8(1) of the 1955 Act creates three distinct categories of pre-emptors, each with its own limitation period, and that a co-sharer alone is entitled to notice of the transfer under the statutory scheme: a raiyat holding merely adjoining/contiguous land (the appellant's category) is not. The Court declined to "read down" the provision to imply a notice requirement for this category, holding that the provision was clear and unambiguous, that the right of pre-emption is a weak statutory right (not a fundamental or constitutional right) which must be exercised strictly as the statute provides, and that reading down is only appropriate to save an ambiguous or potentially unconstitutional provision, neither of which applied here. It distinguished the precedent relied upon by the appellant (Chhana Rani Saha) as dealing with a different factual situation. The Court also rejected a late argument that the appellant should be treated as a co-sharer, since the estate stood already partitioned at the time of transfer. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the High Court's order upheld.
A statutory limitation period runs strictly according to its own terms unless the statute itself requires notice to trigger it. Courts will not read in a "notice" or "date of knowledge" requirement for categories of claimants (here, non-co-sharer pre-emptors) to whom the legislature did not extend that protection. Anyone with a pre-emption or similar statutory right must act within the prescribed period regardless of whether they were personally informed of the triggering transaction, unless the law says otherwise.
