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 of Maharashtra had issued a notification in 2012 to acquire land in village Asarjan, Nanded, for a public project, followed by a declaration in 2013. Various affected landowners filed writ petitions challenging the acquisition, and the High Court granted interim stays, including a stay on declaring the final award in some connected petitions and a stay on dispossession in the lead petition. The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) later quashed the entire acquisition on the technical ground that the final award under Section 11 had not been passed within the two-year statutory period from the Section 6 declaration, prompting the State's appeal.
The Supreme Court held that where a court stay, whether staying the award itself or staying dispossession, prevents the authorities from completing acquisition proceedings for the same land, project and notification, the period during which that stay operates must be excluded when calculating the two-year statutory deadline under Section 11A. Since stays were in force covering the relevant period here, excluding that time meant the award was validly passed within the permitted period, so the acquisition had not lapsed. The Court found the High Court had committed a clear error in not excluding the stay period, allowed all the connected appeals, quashed the High Court's judgments, and dismissed the original writ petitions, with no order as to costs.
When a court itself stays an acquisition process, even by just restraining the government from taking possession or declaring an award, the time during which that stay operates does not count against the government's statutory deadline to complete the acquisition; the acquisition does not "lapse" by default during a judicially-imposed delay.
