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 moreSoftware Technology Parks of India (STPI) hired Consolidated Construction Consortium Ltd (CCCL) to build an office and incubation centre, with construction to finish by January 2007. CCCL finished about 10 months late, in November 2007, after STPI had granted several extensions of time while repeatedly reserving its right to still claim liquidated damages for the delay. STPI deducted roughly Rs. 82 lakh from CCCL's dues as liquidated damages, CCCL challenged this in arbitration, and the sole arbitrator upheld STPI's deduction and rejected all claims and counter-claims (a "nil" award).
A single judge of the Madras High Court had set aside the arbitral award, reasoning that once time was extended, liquidated damages and extension of time could not go together. The Division Bench of the High Court reversed that, restoring the award, and the Supreme Court agreed with the Division Bench. The Court held that Section 34 of the Arbitration Act only allows an award to be set aside on narrow statutory grounds. It is not an appeal, and courts cannot re-examine evidence or substitute their own view merely because a different view was possible. Since STPI had, at every extension, expressly reserved its right to levy liquidated damages, and the arbitrator's interpretation of the contract clauses was a plausible one, the Single Judge had exceeded the limited jurisdiction under Section 34. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Courts will not casually second-guess an arbitrator's decision, under Section 34, an award can only be challenged on very specific legal grounds, not because a different outcome was arguable. Contracting parties should also note that granting time extensions "without prejudice" to a right to claim damages is legally effective and does not waive that right.
