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 moreJai Hind Pvt. Ltd. owned agricultural land in West Bengal and, after the state's estate-acquisition law came into force, claimed the right to retain roughly 239.71 acres as a farming company under Section 6(1)(j) of the WBEA Act, 1953. In 1971, the Revenue Officer denied a large part of this claim in a vesting order that attained finality after litigation. Decades later, in 2008, a different Revenue Officer "reviewed" that 1971 order (acting on a government directive) and allowed the company to retain about 211.21 acres, vesting only about 28.5 acres in the State: a reversal the West Bengal Land Reforms Tribunal quashed as being made without jurisdiction, but which the Calcutta High Court then restored in the company's favour, prompting the State's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the WBEA Act, 1953 nowhere confers a power of substantive review on the Revenue Officer, and a government order approved at the ministerial level cannot itself create such jurisdiction where the statute does not: an executive direction cannot be conflated with a statutory conferment of power. Since the 2008 review order was passed without jurisdiction, it was void ab initio and a "nullity" that could be challenged at any stage, per settled authority such as Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan and Balvant N. Viswamitra v. Yadav Sadashiv Mule. The Court also rejected the company's argument that the State's failure to take physical possession or pay compensation should affect the land's vested status, since the 1971 vesting order had already attained finality. The Court held the High Court erred in reversing the Tribunal and restored the Tribunal's order quashing the 2008 review, so the original 1971 vesting order continues to operate.
A government authority cannot exercise a power of "review" over its own final decisions unless a statute expressly (or by necessary implication) grants that power: an administrative or ministerial directive cannot substitute for statutory authority, and any order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity that can be challenged even decades later.
