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 moreReliance Jio and others complained to the Competition Commission of India (CCI) that Bharti Airtel, Vodafone and Idea (the incumbent telecom operators) had formed an anti-competitive cartel, in part by colluding through their industry association to deny Jio adequate network interconnection points. The CCI formed a prima facie view that a case existed and ordered its Director General to investigate. The telecom operators challenged this before the Bombay High Court, arguing CCI had no jurisdiction because the dispute was really about interconnection and licensing matters governed by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) and its tribunal (TDSAT), and the High Court agreed, quashing CCI's order and the resulting investigation notices.
The Supreme Court held that CCI's order directing investigation under Section 26(1) of the Competition Act is an administrative, not quasi-judicial, direction, but the writ petitions were still maintainable because they raised a genuine jurisdictional question. On the merits, the Court held that where a dispute depends on first resolving technical, licensing or interconnection issues that fall within TRAI's specialised domain (such as whether the incumbent operators denied adequate points of interconnection or breached licensing/quality-of-service obligations), those issues must first be decided by TRAI/TDSAT; only after TRAI returns findings on such jurisdictional facts can CCI examine whether the conduct also amounts to an anti-competitive agreement or abuse of dominance under the Competition Act. Since CCI had invoked its jurisdiction before TRAI had decided these foundational technical/regulatory questions, its investigation order was premature, and the High Court's quashing of it was upheld (though the Supreme Court disagreed with some of the High Court's own reasoning and findings on the merits). The appeals filed by CCI and the complainants were accordingly dismissed, subject to the Court's own observations.
When a specialised sectoral regulator (like TRAI for telecom) and a general regulator (like the CCI for competition law) could both have jurisdiction over the same facts, the sectoral regulator must first resolve the technical/licensing questions within its expertise before the general competition regulator can proceed, both laws can operate, but not necessarily at the same time or in the same order.
