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 owned land in village Moje Sarkuva, Gujarat, part of which had already been formally acquired for the Ukai High Level Cantor Canal. A further portion of about 0.114 hectares was physically used by the government for canal construction, but no formal acquisition proceeding was ever started and no compensation was paid for it. The Gujarat High Court held that, for valuing this land, the relevant date should be 1 January 2014 (the date the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 came into force), which would fix compensation at old, lower rates. The landowner challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing the law itself says the market value must be fixed as of the date of the future acquisition notification, not the date the Act commenced.
The Supreme Court examined the proviso to Section 26(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, which mandates that market value be determined "as on the date on which the notification has been issued under Section 11": the notification that formally starts the acquisition of a specific parcel. Since no Section 11 notification had yet been issued for this extra 0.114 hectares, the Court held there was no legal basis to peg the valuation date to 1 January 2014; that date is only relevant for land where acquisition had already begun under the old 1894 Act and no award had yet been made when the new Act took effect. The legislative scheme leaves courts no discretion to pick a different valuation date. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed that compensation for this land be valued as of the date the Section 11 notification is eventually issued.
When land is taken by the government for public use without ever completing an acquisition notification, the owner does not lose out on inflation. The law requires compensation to be valued as of whenever the formal acquisition notification is finally issued, not backdated to an earlier, unrelated date.
