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 moreA contractor was awarded irrigation-work contracts by the Andhra Pradesh state government in 1978-79 and later raised several monetary claims (for extra transport/"lead" costs, shortfalls in government-supplied food grains and cement, and interest) through arbitration after disputes arose over the work. An arbitrator awarded him amounts on several of these claims in 1988, but on challenge the trial court (Sub-Court) set aside or modified some of these awards, and the High Court went further, holding that the entire arbitration awards were unsustainable because they fell foul of Clause 59 of the contract (which barred compensation claims arising from delay/hindrance, though it allowed time extensions). The contractor's legal heir appealed to the Supreme Court after the contractor's death.
The Supreme Court clarified the scope of Clause 59, holding that it barred only claims for compensation arising from delay or hindrance to the work, not claims, like Claim No.1, for the distinct extra cost of being forced to quarry stone/metal from a farther site than the one specified in the contract, which was not really a "delay" claim at all. The Court held the High Court erred in sweepingly treating all claims as barred by Clause 59. Examining the limited grounds on which a court can modify an arbitral award under Sections 15-16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the Court found no proper basis to interfere with the arbitrator's award on Claim No.1 (extra lead) and restored it along with the arbitrator-awarded interest, relying on precedent that an arbitrator has the discretion to award pendente lite interest. The Court accordingly partly allowed the appeals, restoring Claim No.1 and its interest, while not disturbing the rejection of the claims the appellant did not press (Claim Nos. 2 and 5) and the outcomes on the remaining contested claims.
Courts reviewing an arbitration award have very limited power to interfere with or modify it (only for clerical errors, matters outside the reference, or similar narrow defects): they cannot reappraise the merits; and a contractual clause barring "delay" claims does not automatically bar a genuinely different claim (like extra cost from a changed worksite) just because it arose during an extended contract period.
