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 appellants' land in Rajkot, Gujarat was declared surplus under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, but the official notifications consistently referred to different plot numbers (1 to 16) than the land the State actually later claimed to have taken possession of (plot numbers 36 to 43), with the mismatch supposedly "corrected" years later by a mere handwritten corrigendum that was never officially published. After the Ceiling Act was repealed in 1999, the appellants sought a declaration that the State had no authority over their land, but the Gujarat High Court's Division Bench dismissed their claim.
The Supreme Court held that a handwritten, unpublished corrigendum could not lawfully substitute entirely different plots of land for those actually identified in the statutory notifications: this was not a mere clerical or arithmetical correction but an attempt to divest the appellants of different land altogether without following the mandatory statutory process. Applying its earlier ruling in State of U.P. vs. Hari Ram, the Court found that the State had failed to prove the appellants had voluntarily surrendered possession or been lawfully dispossessed (peacefully or forcibly) of plot numbers 36 to 43 before the Repeal Act of 1999 came into force. It therefore allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and held that the appellants were entitled to retain possession of their land since it had never validly vested in the State.
A government authority cannot use an informal, unpublished "corrigendum" to swap in entirely different land than what was originally and officially notified as surplus; strict compliance with the statutory notice-and-possession procedure is required before any citizen's land can be treated as acquired by the State.
