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 moreDamodar Valley Corporation (DVC), a statutory body generating and distributing electricity (and also running flood-control and related public functions) under its own 1948 Act, had its electricity tariff for 2004-2009 determined by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission. DVC challenged that order before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, which partly allowed its appeal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration; a revised tariff order was then passed, which the Appellate Tribunal again upheld. DVC appealed to the Supreme Court, narrowing its challenge to two points: whether it was wrongly denied "interest on capital" under Section 38 of its own Act, and whether the regulators had wrongly treated accumulated depreciation as reducing its loan component (and thus reducing allowable interest) for tariff purposes.
The Supreme Court held that while Section 38 of the DVC Act does entitle DVC to interest on capital contributed by participating governments, the Appellate Tribunal's earlier order had, on a proper reading, already accounted for this through the equity component earning a return under the tariff regulations, so there was no actual shortfall requiring correction. On the second issue, the Court noted that the point about cumulative depreciation reducing the loan component had already been conclusively decided against DVC in an earlier, now-final Supreme Court ruling (Bhaskar Shrachi Alloys Ltd. vs Damodar Valley Corporation, 2018 (8) SCC 281) concerning the very same first round of litigation, and DVC could not reopen a settled issue in this later round. Finding no substantial legal error warranting interference, the Court declined to answer the question of law raised and dismissed the appeal, with each side bearing its own costs.
Once a legal issue has been conclusively decided and attained finality in an earlier round of related litigation (here, between the same parties over the same tariff dispute), a party cannot reopen or re-litigate that same issue in a later appeal arising from the same proceedings.
