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 moreSellers Kandla Export Corporation were directed, by a GAFTA arbitration award later modified on appeal in the UK, to pay the buyers (OCI Corporation) roughly US$ 815,000 with interest; their challenges in UK courts failed. When OCI sought to enforce this foreign award in India under Section 48 of the Arbitration Act before the Gujarat courts, the sellers' objections were dismissed and the execution petition allowed; their further appeal under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 was itself dismissed by the Gujarat High Court on the view that no appeal lay once Section 50 of the Arbitration Act did not provide one for enforcement of a foreign award. The sellers then appealed to the Supreme Court on the core legal question of whether the wider appeal right under the Commercial Courts Act could still apply.
The Supreme Court held that because Section 50 of the Arbitration Act specifically governs which orders can be appealed in matters of foreign award enforcement and that provision does not permit an appeal from an order enforcing (as opposed to refusing to enforce) a foreign award, the broader general appeal provision in Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act cannot be used to create an appeal right the special arbitration law deliberately withholds. The Court reasoned that allowing such an additional appeal would undermine both statutes' shared purpose of speedy resolution, arbitration's commitment to quick dispute resolution and the Commercial Courts Act's own goal of fast-tracking high-value commercial disputes, and would absurdly make foreign-award enforcement slower for high-value awards (where an extra appeal would be available) than for low-value ones (where it would not). Applying harmonious construction, the Court held the special statute (the Arbitration Act) must prevail over the general one (the Commercial Courts Act) in the sphere of arbitration, and dismissed the appeals with no order as to costs.
When a specialised law (like the Arbitration Act) deliberately limits which orders can be appealed to ensure speed and finality, a more general law (like the Commercial Courts Act) cannot be read to override that limitation and create an extra layer of appeal: the specific statute governs its own subject matter.
