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 moreA state industrial development corporation in Andhra Pradesh allotted industrial plots to several transport companies in the late 1990s, with a condition in the allotment letters that they build their units within two years or face cancellation. The companies paid full consideration and the corporation executed registered sale deeds transferring ownership to them, but the sale deeds themselves contained no such two-year construction deadline. Roughly six years later, the corporation issued show-cause notices and then cancelled the allotments for failure to build, even though it had only supplied basic infrastructure like roads and electricity to the plots in 2006, after the cancellation dispute had already started. The corporation later softened its stance, offering to restore the plots if the companies paid 50% of the current market value, which the companies challenged; the High Court's Single Judge and then a Division Bench both ruled in the companies' favour.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that once a registered sale deed is executed and ownership is fully conveyed under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, conditions that existed only in the earlier allotment letter (and not in the sale deed itself) cease to have legal effect: the corporation could not resurrect the two-year construction condition or demand extra money after it had already sold the land outright. The Court distinguished its earlier ruling in Indu Kakkar v. Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation, noting that case involved a construction condition actually written into the agreement/sale deed itself (a valid "condition super-added"), unlike here. It also held the corporation could not raise, for the first time in litigation, a new justification (land put to a different use) that was never the actual basis for the original cancellation or the 50% demand, citing the principle that a public authority's order must be judged only by the reasons it originally gave. Since there was no legal basis for demanding 50% of market value after full, unconditional sale, all the corporation's appeals were dismissed, with costs.
Once you buy land and get a registered sale deed with no restrictive condition written into it, the seller cannot later reach back into an earlier allotment letter to impose new conditions, penalties, or demands: conditions that are not carried into the final sale deed generally do not survive the sale.
