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 moreIndian Oil Corporation (IOC) terminated T. Natarajan's petrol-pump dealership after inspections found a cut "totalizer seal" wire used to measure fuel dispensed. Natarajan challenged the termination through arbitration under the dealership agreement; the Arbitrator found the breach was indeed made out but, taking a lenient view, gave Natarajan liberty to approach IOC afresh for restoration of his dealership: a decision the High Court's Single Judge upheld, and which neither side appealed. When Natarajan then made a representation to IOC for restoration, IOC rejected it, and Natarajan challenged that rejection by writ petition; the Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, but a Division Bench of the Madras High Court reversed, wrongly treating the earlier arbitration award as if it had set aside the termination itself and ordering IOC to restore the dealership and fuel supply.
The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench had misread the arbitration award: the Arbitrator had found the breach proven and, in substance, upheld the termination, merely allowing Natarajan the separate liberty to apply afresh to IOC for reconsideration, not a direction that the dealership must be restored. Reconsidering and deciding whether to restore a terminated dealership was IOC's own discretionary administrative decision as the contracting principal, and courts exercising writ jurisdiction cannot sit as an appellate authority over that discretion absent arbitrariness, which was not shown here. Finding IOC's rejection reasoned and not arbitrary, the Court held the Single Judge had correctly dismissed the writ petition, that the Division Bench's reversal was legally unsustainable, allowed IOC's appeal, set aside the Division Bench's order, and restored the Single Judge's dismissal of Natarajan's writ petition.
Courts will not use writ jurisdiction to second-guess a company's reasoned, non-arbitrary business decision on whether to restore a terminated dealership, and a liberty granted in an arbitral award to "apply afresh" for reconsideration is not the same as a direction compelling that the request be granted.
