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 moreThe Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission had fixed a tariff (Rs. 15/kWh for the first 12 years, then Rs. 5/kWh) for solar power projects commissioned by 31 December 2011 under a "1st Tariff Order," and a Power Purchase Agreement between Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam (the distribution utility) and EMCO Limited (a solar power producer) incorporated this tariff. A later "2nd Tariff Order" fixed a different (higher) tariff for projects commissioned after 29 January 2012, and EMCO, whose project was delayed and relocated under a supplemental agreement, claimed entitlement to the benefit of this second, more favourable order instead of the tariff fixed in its own PPA.
The Supreme Court held that the order of the appellate forum (the impugned order under appeal) wrongly allowed EMCO to claim the benefit of the 2nd Tariff Order merely by invoking it, without EMCO ever having filed its own petition before the Commission seeking determination of a separate tariff "taking into account all the relevant facts," as the 1st Tariff Order itself required for projects not covered by its terms. Since EMCO's existing PPA already fixed the applicable tariff and EMCO had not properly sought a fresh tariff determination, the Court set aside both the impugned appellate order and the underlying regulatory order it upheld, and rejected the respondents' objection that the appeal raised no substantial question of law. The appeal was allowed with costs of Rs. 2 lakhs payable by EMCO.
A party to a fixed-tariff power purchase agreement cannot simply claim the benefit of a later, more favourable tariff order without following the proper procedure, filing its own petition before the regulator and establishing entitlement based on the specific facts, rather than assuming automatic entitlement.
