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 moreIBI Consultancy India (an Indian subsidiary of Canada's IBI Group) and its parent company had separately entered into contracts with DSC Limited to install toll and traffic equipment on two highway projects in Uttar Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. After DSC Limited allegedly defaulted on payments, IBI tried to invoke the arbitration clause in the contracts, but DSC did not respond, so IBI moved the Delhi High Court for appointment of an arbitrator. The High Court held that since one party was a foreign entity, this counted as "international commercial arbitration," meaning only the Supreme Court (not the High Court) had the power to appoint the arbitrator, so IBI filed four connected petitions directly before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the contract documents and held that a letter of intent referenced in the contract (containing the arbitration clause) was an integral part of the agreement, so a valid arbitration agreement did exist between the parties, rejecting DSC's argument to the contrary. Since the parties could not mutually agree on an arbitrator, the Court exercised its power under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act and appointed Justice Amitava Roy, a former Supreme Court judge, as the sole arbitrator to decide the underlying payment dispute, subject to standard independence/disclosure safeguards under Section 12 of the Act. All four connected petitions were disposed of on this basis.
When a contract is in dispute and the parties cannot agree on an arbitrator, courts will look at the substance of the documents (including referenced letters/annexures) to decide whether a valid arbitration clause exists, and if one does, the court itself can step in to appoint an arbitrator so the underlying dispute can proceed to resolution.
