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 moreIndustrial consumers in Rajasthan who sourced electricity through "open access" (bypassing the local distribution company) challenged a December 2016 order of the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission that fixed a higher Cross-Subsidy Surcharge, a charge meant to compensate distribution companies for lost subsidy revenue, based on the tariff fixed in an earlier September 2016 order. The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) set aside the Commission's surcharge order, reasoning that the surcharge determination should have coincided with the tariff-fixing exercise, so the distribution companies (Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam and others) appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that nothing in the Electricity Act, 2003 or the Rajasthan Tariff Regulations, 2014 requires the Cross-Subsidy Surcharge to be determined simultaneously with the tariff: the surcharge can be fixed separately based on the tariff that is currently in force, as the regulations' own formula makes clear. Since the September 2016 tariff order remained in force until a new tariff order was passed in November 2017, the Commission was entitled to compute the surcharge based on that prevailing tariff in its December 2016 order. The Tribunal's view that the two exercises must coincide was held to be erroneous, and the Commission's original surcharge order was restored.
Regulatory charges and tariffs governed by a statutory formula do not need to be fixed in the same proceeding: a charge can validly be based on whatever tariff is currently in force, even if that tariff was set at an earlier point in time, as long as the governing regulation permits it.
