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 moreC. Velusamy and K. Indhera were parties to agreements to sell that went into arbitration before a sole arbitrator appointed by the Madras High Court. The arbitrator's mandate to decide the case (extended once by the parties) expired on 20.02.2024, but due to repeated adjournments for settlement talks that ultimately failed, the arbitrator only issued the final award on 11.05.2024, after the mandate had lapsed. The respondent then got the award set aside in the High Court on the ground that the arbitrator no longer had authority to decide the case, while the appellant separately sought a court order extending the arbitrator's mandate; the High Court held such an extension application could not be entertained once an award had already been passed.
The Supreme Court held that an application under Section 29A(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to extend an arbitrator's mandate remains maintainable even after the arbitrator has already rendered an award beyond the statutory time limit: such a late award is simply ineffective and unenforceable, but it does not strip the Court of its power to consider extending the mandate. The Court reasoned that Section 29A exists to keep arbitration accessible, affordable, expeditious and cohesive, and an arbitrator's own delay or indiscretion should not defeat a party's right to seek an extension; on considering the application, courts must examine whether there was sufficient cause for the delay and may impose conditions (including reducing the arbitrator's fee or substituting the arbitrator) as appropriate. It approved the earlier view in Rohan Builders v. Berger Paints that extension applications can be filed even after the original/extended period lapses, and clarified that a mandate-substitution is discretionary, not automatic. The appeal was allowed and the extension application was restored to the High Court to be decided per these principles.
If an arbitrator misses the 12/18-month statutory deadline to issue an award (even due to settlement talks dragging on), a party is not left without remedy. Courts can still be asked to extend the arbitrator's mandate after the fact, so an "out of time" award does not automatically mean the dispute must restart from scratch.
