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 respondent booked a 3-BHK flat in a 2009 group housing project of the Nagpur Housing and Area Development Board (a MHADA unit), paying the full price across eight instalments by 2013, but possession was never delivered and the authority instead threatened to cancel his allotment unless he paid more. He complained of deficiency in service, and the State Consumer Commission (on remand) ordered the authority to either complete the flat or refund all money paid with 15% annual interest plus substantial compensation. On appeal, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) reduced the interest to 9% and the compensation, but the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), exercising its supervisory writ jurisdiction, restored the higher 15% interest rate.
The Supreme Court held that the NCDRC had correctly balanced the parties' interests by ordering a refund with 9% interest, in line with the Court's own precedent (Bangalore Development Authority v. Syndicate Bank) that a buyer denied timely possession is entitled to a refund with "reasonable" interest, and that the High Court erred in enhancing this to 15% by relying on a differently-facted precedent involving commercial office premises rather than a residential flat. The Court therefore set aside the High Court's order and restored the NCDRC's 9% interest award, while also reducing the compensation for the buyer's losses from Rs.10 lakh to Rs.7.5 lakh, noting that as a government housing body the delay could not be attributed to personal wrongdoing by any official, though it still upheld the core refund-with-interest relief in the buyer's favour.
A home buyer who has paid in full but never received possession is entitled to a refund with reasonable interest, but the exact interest rate must be tailored to the facts (residential versus commercial, and the nature of the developer) rather than mechanically imported from an unrelated precedent.
