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 Railways acquired about 101 acres of land near Jagitial (Telangana/Andhra Pradesh) in 2003 for a new railway line. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed a market value; a Reference Court later raised it substantially and applied a 50% deduction for development charges, but the High Court reduced that deduction to 25%, thereby increasing the compensation further. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court against the higher compensation fixed by the High Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had given no good reason for reducing the developmental-charges deduction from 50% to 25%, while the Reference Court's reasons for the higher 50% deduction (land not fully developed, lack of comparable large-plot sale deeds, etc.) were sound and case-specific, consistent with prior Supreme Court precedent that the correct deduction percentage depends on the facts of each case. The per-acre market value itself (fixed by the Reference Court and upheld by the High Court) was not disputed by either side and was left undisturbed. The Court therefore restored the Reference Court's lower compensation figure (with the 50% deduction) and set aside the High Court's judgment.
In land acquisition compensation disputes, an appellate court must give specific, case-based reasons for altering a standard deduction (such as the development-charges deduction): a higher court cannot simply substitute a different percentage without justifying why the facts warrant it.
