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 moreCoal India Ltd (CIL), a public sector coal-mining undertaking, notified an "Interim Coal Policy" in 2006 that raised coal prices by 20% for "linked" consumers in the non-core sector (private companies, including the respondent, that manufacture smokeless fuel using coal as raw material), following an earlier Supreme Court judgment (Ashoka Smokeless) that had struck down CIL's e-auction pricing system. The respondents challenged this 20% increase as arbitrary and violative of Article 14, and both the Calcutta High Court's single judge and division bench ruled that CIL had no authority to notify the policy, ordering the excess amount refunded. CIL appealed to the Supreme Court, along with several connected transfer cases raising the same issue.
The Supreme Court allowed CIL's appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, holding the Interim Coal Policy valid. It found that the Coal Controller's Order, 2000 had already deregulated coal pricing power in favour of coal companies, and nothing in the Ashoka Smokeless judgment restricted CIL's authority to set interim prices while an expert committee's recommendations were pending. On the discrimination challenge, the Court held that the core and non-core sector classification was reasonable and rationally connected to the legitimate goal of sustaining CIL's operations and coal supply: the 20% increase (which offset only about 1.2% of CIL's actual cost increase) was not profiteering but a policy decision serving the "common good" under Article 39(b), so only the rational-nexus test (not the stricter proportionality test) applied. The Court also held that even had the policy been invalid, no refund would have been due, since the respondents had shown no evidence they bore the cost themselves rather than passing it on to their own customers (which would have caused unjust enrichment), and their earlier undertaking regarding refunds became moot once they challenged the policy itself.
Courts will not second-guess a public sector undertaking's economic pricing policy under Article 14 so long as the classification between consumer groups is rationally connected to a legitimate objective like sustainable operations, and a claimant seeking a refund of an allegedly excess charge must show they actually bore that cost rather than passing it downstream, or risk being denied relief on grounds of unjust enrichment.
