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 appellant's predecessor-in-interest owned land acquired in 1985 for a bus terminus in Amravati, Maharashtra. The Land Acquisition Officer's 1987 award was communicated by a notice that did not enclose a copy of the actual award; the claimant only received the certified copy of the award on 3 February 1988 and sought a reference for enhanced compensation shortly after. The Reference Court raised the compensation rate, but on cross-appeals the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) ultimately held, after a remand on the limitation issue, that the claim for enhancement had been filed beyond the limitation period, treating the claimants as having constructive knowledge of the award once they collected compensation in December 1987.
The Supreme Court held, relying on its earlier ruling in Premji Nathu v. State of Gujarat, that a notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act is not effective unless accompanied by a copy of the actual award; since the appellant only received the certified copy of the award on 3 February 1988, the limitation period could not have started running earlier, and the reference for enhancement was not time-barred. The Court set aside the High Court's finding on limitation and remanded the matter back to the High Court only for fresh consideration of the remaining merits, specifically, the quantum of compensation, requesting expeditious disposal given the long pendency. A connected set of appeals raising the identical legal question, arising from the same impugned High Court judgment, was disposed of on the same basis.
A notice of a land acquisition award is not legally effective, and limitation for seeking enhanced compensation does not begin to run, until the claimant actually receives a copy of the award itself: merely being informed that an award exists, or collecting compensation, is not enough to start the clock.
