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 2010 Power Purchase Agreement, Rajasthan's electricity distribution companies (the Discoms) agreed to buy 1200 MW of power from Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. at a fixed levelized tariff. In 2017, Coal India Limited imposed a new "Evacuation Facility Charge" of Rs. 50 per tonne on coal dispatches, which the power generator immediately flagged to the Discoms as a "change in law" event under the PPA entitling it to pass through the additional cost. When the Discoms did not respond satisfactorily, the generator approached the Rajasthan Electricity Regulatory Commission (RERC), which granted partial relief; the matter proceeded through further appellate rounds (including before the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity), and the Discoms ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court challenging their liability to pay the resulting supplementary bill.
The Supreme Court examined the PPA's provisions on billing, particularly the distinction between a routine monthly bill and a "supplementary bill" raised for a change-in-law event under Article 10, and held that once a competent forum adjudicates that a change in law has occurred, the other party is contractually bound to pay the supplementary bill: a party cannot resist payment merely by arguing that the bill should have been raised earlier. The Court rejected the Discoms' argument that timing defects in raising the supplementary bill defeated the claim, noting the generator had in fact notified the change-in-law event the very next day after the Coal India notification was issued. Relying on its own precedents on similarly structured PPA disputes and carrying-cost claims, the Court found no merit in reopening issues already settled by binding authority, and upheld the liability fastened on the Discoms. The appeal was dismissed.
In long-term power purchase agreements, a "change in law" cost increase (such as a new statutory levy) validly notified and adjudicated by the competent regulatory forum must be honoured through the contractually prescribed supplementary billing mechanism, and a paying party cannot avoid liability by raising technical objections about the timing of the bill.
