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 moreUnder a Kerala government policy to encourage private hydel power projects, the appellant set up a 21 MW captive hydro plant, with the state electricity board (KSEB) contractually obligated to build the transmission lines needed to carry the power to the grid. The appellant completed its plant on schedule, but KSEB's transmission lines were delayed for years (partly due to farmer protests over land acquisition), preventing the appellant from using its own generated power and forcing it to buy costlier power from KSEB in the interim. The Kerala High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition, holding the contract set no deadline for KSEB to finish the transmission lines and upholding the State Government's 2001 order denying the appellant "deemed generation" status or an extended tariff concession.
The Supreme Court held that although the contract clause on transmission lines did not expressly state a deadline, it had to be read together with the clause requiring the appellant to achieve "commercial operation" (defined as power being fed into the grid) within 30 months, meaning an implicit 30-month deadline also applied to KSEB's transmission-line obligation, since otherwise that clause would be rendered meaningless. The Court reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 extends to contractual disputes involving the State, which must act fairly and not arbitrarily even in commercial dealings, and that contractual sanctity matters for a stable investment climate. While agreeing the appellant was not automatically entitled to "deemed generation" status or an extended concessional tariff as these were policy matters, the Court found the factual record undisputed that the delay was solely due to KSEB's failure to complete the lines on time. It therefore set aside the High Court's judgment and directed the State Government and KSEB to jointly re-examine the appellant's entire claim afresh within four months, in light of the Court's finding that an implicit timeline did exist, giving the appellant liberty to file supplementary submissions.
Courts will read an implied timeline into one contractual obligation where it is a necessary precondition for another obligation to make sense, and government bodies cannot escape the consequences of their own delay in a commercial contract merely because the contract does not spell out an explicit deadline for their part of the bargain, though the ultimate remedy here was left to be worked out administratively rather than fixed by the Court itself.
