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 moreA joint venture company (BGM and M-RPL-JMCT) had a transportation/handling contract with Eastern Coalfields Limited. When disputes arose, the joint venture sought to have an arbitrator appointed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, relying on a contract clause stating that "in case of parties other than Govt. Agencies, the redressal of the dispute may be sought through" arbitration. The Calcutta High Court refused to appoint an arbitrator, holding that the word "may" showed the parties had not definitely agreed to arbitration, and the company appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court first clarified that when deciding whether to appoint an arbitrator, a court only needs to check, on the face of an undisputed document, whether an arbitration agreement exists; it does not need to hold a full trial on the question, and any view it takes is not binding on the arbitrator later. Applying settled principles from its own precedents, the Court held that using the permissive word "may" (rather than a mandatory "shall") in a dispute clause means the parties had not actually committed themselves to arbitration. It was merely an option they could jointly choose later, not a binding promise. Since the joint venture could not show the parties had agreed to arbitration, the Court agreed with the High Court and dismissed the appeal.
When drafting a contract, the specific wording of a dispute-resolution clause matters enormously: language merely saying disputes "may" go to arbitration, without a firm mutual commitment, will not be treated as a binding arbitration agreement, and a party wanting a guaranteed right to arbitrate should make sure the clause says disputes "shall" be referred to arbitration.
