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 moreAn Australian coal supplier and the Indian public sector company MMTC Ltd. were parties to a long-term coal supply agreement. A dispute arose over MMTC's failure to lift the contracted quantity of coal during the "Fifth Delivery Period" (2008-09), with the supplier claiming damages for breach. An international arbitral tribunal of three arbitrators issued a majority award (2 of 3) in favour of the supplier, with one arbitrator dissenting. A single judge of the Delhi High Court upheld the majority award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, but a Division Bench of the same High Court later reversed this and set aside the award under Section 37 (an appeal from a Section 34 order). The coal supplier then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court restored the arbitral tribunal's majority award, holding that the Delhi High Court's Division Bench had exceeded the very limited scope of judicial review permitted under Sections 34 and 37 of the Arbitration Act. Reaffirming its earlier landmark ruling in Associate Builders v. DDA and later cases, the Court explained that a court cannot sit in appeal over an arbitral award or substitute its own view of the facts or contract interpretation for that of the arbitrators: interference is permitted only if the award is "patently illegal," conflicts with the fundamental policy of Indian law, or is so perverse that no reasonable person could have reached that conclusion based on the evidence. Since the majority award here represented one possible, reasonable reading of the correspondence and conduct between the parties, it could not be labelled perverse merely because an alternative interpretation existed. The Court therefore set aside the Division Bench's judgment and restored both the arbitral award and the Single Judge's earlier ruling upholding it.
When parties choose arbitration to resolve a commercial dispute, courts will generally respect the arbitrator's decision and intervene only in narrow circumstances, such as fraud, a decision no reasonable person could have reached, or a clear violation of law, and not simply because a court might have read the contract differently.
