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 moreHPCL floated a tender for a Tank Truck Locking System and awarded the contract to AGC Networks Ltd (AGC), with an express clause barring sub-letting or assignment without HPCL's prior written consent. AGC in turn engaged BCL Secure Premises Pvt. Ltd. (BCL) as a sub-vendor to actually execute most of the work. After disputes over unpaid dues, BCL pursued AGC through multiple forums (civil suit, insolvency petition, MSME arbitration claims) before eventually signing a Settlement-cum-Assignment Agreement with AGC in 2023, under which AGC's receivables from HPCL were assigned to BCL. BCL then invoked the arbitration clause directly against HPCL, though it had never signed any contract with HPCL. The Bombay High Court referred the dispute to arbitration, prompting HPCL's appeal.
The Supreme Court held that while a referral court under Section 11 must ordinarily leave the question of whether a non-signatory is a "veritable party" to the Arbitral Tribunal (per Cox and Kings), the referral court is not stripped of its own duty to prima facie satisfy itself that a party is genuinely bound, and cannot become a "monotonous automaton" that sends every case to arbitration regardless of merit. On the facts, HPCL had no privity of contract with BCL: the contract between AGC and BCL expressly barred BCL from communicating with HPCL without AGC's approval, and the later assignment agreement was only between AGC and BCL, not with HPCL's consent as the original tender required. The Court found HPCL and BCL "operated on separate orbits" and that mere commercial connection or copied emails did not make BCL a veritable party to HPCL's arbitration agreement. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's order was set aside, and BCL's Section 11 application was dismissed (while leaving BCL free to pursue other legal remedies).
A company cannot be dragged into arbitration under someone else's contract merely because it performed the underlying work as a sub-contractor or received an assignment of receivables: genuine consent or a demonstrable intention to be legally bound is required, and courts will scrutinise this even at the initial reference stage rather than reflexively handing every dispute to an arbitrator.
