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 and respondent no. 1 formed a limited liability partnership (respondent no. 2) to execute oil-and-gas projects, with respondent no. 3 designated as the LLP's CEO under the partnership agreement, which contained an arbitration clause. A dispute arose over reconciliation of project accounts, and the appellant sent an arbitration notice and filed a court application for appointment of an arbitrator, but named only respondent no. 1, not the LLP or its CEO. After the arbitrator was appointed, the appellant tried to also bring in the LLP and its CEO as parties to the arbitration claim. The arbitral tribunal, and later the High Court, ruled this could not be done because those two had never been served the arbitration notice or named in the court application, so the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a notice invoking arbitration and the list of parties named in the court application for appointing an arbitrator are not final limits on who can later be made a party to the arbitration. The court's role at the appointment stage is only a limited, preliminary screening, not a final decision on scope or parties. The real question, the Court held, is whether the person sought to be added actually consented to be bound by the arbitration agreement, applying the "Group of Companies" test from Cox and Kings v. SAP India, looking at mutual intent, the relationship between signatory and non-signatory, commonality of subject matter, and how the non-signatory actually performed the contract. Applying this, the Court found that the LLP was created by and operated entirely under the partnership agreement, and its CEO acted throughout under his contractual role defined in that agreement, so both had, through their conduct, effectively agreed to be bound by its arbitration clause even without signing it separately. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and directed that both be added as parties before the arbitral tribunal, with proceedings to continue from where they had been halted.
Not sending a formal arbitration notice to someone, or leaving them out of the initial court application to appoint an arbitrator, does not permanently protect them from being added to the arbitration later. If their own conduct shows they operated under the same contract and consented to its terms, they can still be pulled into the arbitration as a party.
