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 moreSaisudhir Energy was selected to build a 10 MW solar power project in Karnataka and signed a Power Purchase Agreement with Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Company (CESC) at a fixed tariff, subject to achieving commercial operation within a set timeframe. The project could not be commissioned on time because the state transmission utility (KPTCL) delayed building the necessary 220 kV evacuation lines by over a year. CESC nevertheless encashed the developer's Rs. 24.9 crore performance bank guarantee for missing the deadline, and also offered to extend the deadline only if the developer accepted a much lower tariff. The developer approached Karnataka's electricity regulator, which, along with the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, ruled in the developer's favour, treating the delay as a "force majeure" event and ordering CESC to return the bank guarantee, extend timelines, and renegotiate the tariff.
The Supreme Court reversed both lower rulings and sided with CESC. It held that under the PPA's own terms, a party claiming relief for delay had two specific contractual routes (seeking an extension for delay "attributable to" CESC, or formally invoking the force majeure clause (which required written notice within 7 days)) and the developer had done neither. Because the force majeure notice requirement was a mandatory precondition, not a mere formality, the regulator's finding of force majeure could not stand. The Court also held that regulatory bodies cannot rewrite a competitively-bid commercial contract's own risk allocation in the name of fairness or equity; since the developer never sought or obtained an extension under the correct clause, CESC's encashment of the bank guarantee was a valid exercise of its contractual right.
In a commercial contract, if you want relief for a delay caused by circumstances beyond your control, you must follow the contract's own specified procedure (such as giving timely written notice). Courts and regulators generally will not rewrite the parties' contractual bargain after the fact, even where the outcome seems harsh.
