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 Government acquired land at Banjarawala Mafi, Dehradun, in 1992 to rehabilitate people displaced by the Tehri Dam, with an award passed in 1997. The landowners sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the Reference Court granted them statutory benefits (the 12% additional amount, 30% solatium, and statutory interest) on top of the agreed compensation. Tehri Hydro Development Corporation appealed to the Uttarakhand High Court challenging only these statutory benefits, but paid a flat Rs. 10 court fee instead of a value-based (ad valorem) fee. The High Court ordered it to pay ad valorem fee on the full disputed amount of about Rs. 2.34 crore.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's order. It held that under Section 26 of the Land Acquisition Act, a Reference Court's award is deemed a civil "decree," and solatium, the additional statutory amount, and interest are not optional add-ons but integral, inseparable parts of "compensation" itself (relying on the Constitution Bench ruling in Sunder v. Union of India and Indore Development Authority v. Tarak Singh). An appeal challenging only these components is still, in substance, an appeal to reduce the decretal compensation amount, so it attracts ad valorem court fee under Section 8 of the Court Fees Act: a party cannot pay a nominal fixed fee merely by confining its challenge to one component of the award.
When appealing a land acquisition compensation award (even if only challenging solatium, the additional statutory amount, or interest, rather than the core market-value determination) a party must pay ad valorem court fee on the amount in dispute, not a nominal fixed fee.
