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 moreLand was acquired in 1995 for the Ranjit Sagar Dam Project, and the Reference Court awarded a uniform compensation rate of Rs. 1,600 per marla across land that the Land Acquisition Collector had originally classified into six different categories. The State's appeal against this award (in the lead case, Usha Rani) had been filed before the High Court with a 492-day delay; the High Court refused to condone the delay and, in any event, upheld the compensation on merits without discussing the basis for the Reference Court's award. The present appeal (and a connected one, Diary No. 11555/2017) raised the identical grievance and followed the same facts as the earlier common batch judgment covering similar Ranjit Sagar Dam compensation appeals.
The Supreme Court had already decided, in an earlier common judgment for a batch of connected appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 1949-1966 of 2016 and connected matters), that the 492-day delay should be condoned in the interest of justice (while directing the State to take action against the officers responsible for the delay), and that the High Court's affirmance of the Rs. 1,600 per marla rate could not stand because it contained no discussion of the material basis for that figure, so those appeals were allowed and remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits within six months, with no recovery of compensation already paid pending that fresh decision. In the present order, the Court held that since this appeal (and the connected Diary No. 11555/2017) raised the same issue and formed part of the same common dispute, no separate notice to the respondents was necessary, and it simply disposed of these appeals in terms of the earlier extracted judgment, condoning the delay, setting aside the impugned High Court order, and remanding for fresh consideration on merits. The Court directed the State to communicate a copy of the judgment and appeal papers to the respondents since no notice had been issued to them.
When an appellate court fails to properly engage with and discuss the record while fixing compensation, a higher court can set that decision aside and send the matter back for a reasoned re-determination: procedural delay (such as in filing an appeal) can be condoned when the delay is adequately explained and substantial justice is at stake, rather than letting it override merits.
