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 moreThe Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (a UP statutory market body) floated a tender to lease out a banquet hall/terrace lawn for 10 years, requiring bidders to submit a "haisiyat praman patra" (solvency/net-worth certificate) of at least Rs. 10 crores. The appellant's technical bid was rejected because its certificate was issued by a private architect/valuer rather than a District Magistrate, relying on a UP government notification prescribing that procedure. The Allahabad High Court upheld the rejection, and the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that courts reviewing tender decisions do not sit in appeal over the tendering authority's judgment, but will intervene where a rejection is "dehors" (outside) the actual terms of the tender notice or is patently arbitrary. Examining the tender notice, the Court found that nothing in its conditions required the certificate to be issued specifically by a District Magistrate: that requirement came only from a separate government notification whose applicability to this tender was never spelt out in the tender document itself, and the Mandi Parishad (a statutory body, not a government department) had failed to incorporate that requirement into its own tender conditions. The Court also rejected a fresh justification (that the certificate didn't disclose encumbrances) raised for the first time in the counter-affidavit, holding that a rejection must stand or fall on the grounds actually stated at the time, not new grounds added later in litigation. Since the appellant's valuer-issued certificate showed net worth well above the required Rs. 10 crore threshold, the rejection was quashed and the matter remanded for the tender authority to reconsider the appellant's bid.
A tendering authority cannot reject a bid for failing to meet a requirement that was never actually spelt out in the tender notice itself, and it cannot invent new justifications for a rejection after the fact in court proceedings: the reasons given at the time of rejection are what the rejection must be judged on.
