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 State of Haryana sought to acquire land, including land owned by Eros City Developers Pvt. Ltd., to expand and systematically develop the Surajkund Tourist Complex (site of the well-known annual Surajkund Mela). An earlier attempt to acquire the same land in 1992 had been dropped because of a Supreme Court restraint order in an unrelated environmental case (M.C. Mehta). After that restraint was modified, the State issued fresh acquisition notifications in 2003-2004, which the High Court quashed on the ground that the State had acted in bad faith and that the developer had a legitimate expectation/promissory estoppel claim because it had already obtained permissions to build a hotel on the land.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in quashing the acquisition by applying the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, since these doctrines must yield to overriding public interest and cannot be used to block a genuine public purpose for private benefit. It held that developing the Surajkund Tourist Complex, including an adjoining parking area, was a genuine public purpose, and that the State had acted bona fide: the earlier 1992 acquisition was dropped only because of the Court's own restraint order in the M.C. Mehta case, not out of bad faith, and a fresh acquisition after that restraint was lifted was not illegal. The Court also noted the developer had failed to start construction within the time required after getting permission for change of land use, undercutting its equity-based claims. Both appeals were allowed and the High Court's judgment quashing the acquisition notifications and award was set aside, with no order as to costs.
A private party's reliance on earlier government permissions or an unused opportunity to build cannot block a later, bona fide land acquisition genuinely intended to serve a larger public purpose: the equitable doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation give way to the public interest.
