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 government acquired agricultural land in Jalgaon, Maharashtra in 1998 for building a minor irrigation tank, and the landowners sought enhanced compensation for the land and the fruit-bearing trees on it, relying on a valuation report by a private valuer. The trial court (Reference Court) rejected that valuation and fixed a lower rate, but the Bombay High Court, relying on an earlier Supreme Court case that had accepted a report from the very same valuer, overturned that finding and enhanced the compensation significantly. The government (Executive Engineer) appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court had mechanically copied the outcome of the earlier unrelated case instead of independently examining the valuer's credibility and evidence in this specific case.
The Supreme Court agreed with the government, holding that the High Court had misapplied the earlier precedent: that precedent only dealt with a different evidentiary issue (a discarded sale instance) and never examined the valuer's personal competence, qualifications, or the specific objections raised in cross-examination in this case. Because every land-acquisition reference must be decided on its own evidence, the mere fact that the same valuer's report was accepted in an unrelated proceeding could not substitute for the High Court actually analysing the detailed cross-examination and competency challenges raised here. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and sent the matter back to the High Court to decide the original appeal afresh on its own merits, keeping all arguments on both sides open.
A court cannot resolve a factual dispute (such as the reliability of an expert witness's valuation) just by pointing to a different, unrelated case where the same expert's evidence was once accepted: each case must be decided on the specific evidence and cross-examination actually placed on its own record.
