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 moreFollowing the Supreme Court's earlier landmark ruling in Goa Foundation (on illegal iron ore mining in Goa), the State of Goa was required to grant fresh mining leases rather than simply renewing existing ones. Instead, the State granted a "second renewal" of mining leases to lease holders, and the Ministry of Environment and Forest lifted an earlier abeyance order on environmental clearances rather than issuing fresh ones. The Bombay High Court (in the Lithoferro case) upheld this approach and directed the State to grant second renewals, prompting the Goa Foundation (an environmental NGO) and others to challenge this before the Supreme Court as contrary to the Court's own earlier directions.
The Supreme Court held that its earlier decision in Goa Foundation obliged the State to grant fresh mining leases in accordance with law, not second renewals, and that the State was not constitutionally required to do this only through competitive bidding/auction. It found the second renewals were granted in undue haste, without considering all relevant material, and primarily to boost state revenue, a purpose outside the scope of Section 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, and therefore quashed the second renewals. It also held the Ministry of Environment was obliged to grant genuinely fresh environmental clearances, not merely revive the abeyance order, and set aside the Bombay High Court's contrary ruling in Lithoferro. As a transitional measure, lease holders operating under the quashed renewals were permitted to continue mining only until 15 March 2018, after which they had to stop until fresh leases and fresh environmental clearances were obtained, with directions to the State to expedite the process, implement pending investigation/audit reports, and recover dues from mining lease holders.
When a court sets specific directions for correcting an unlawful practice (here, replacing lapsed leases with "fresh" grants rather than renewals), state authorities cannot sidestep those directions through administrative relabeling (calling something a "renewal" or quietly lifting a suspension): courts will enforce the substance of their earlier orders, even years later, and can order an immediate halt to ongoing commercial operations found to be non-compliant.
