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 morePuri Construction Ltd. (PCL), which owned land in Gurgaon under development licenses, brought in Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (L&T) via a Development Agreement to complete a housing project after an earlier joint-venture partner exited. When L&T allegedly abandoned its obligations (failing to pay statutory development charges, jeopardizing PCL's commitments to the exiting partner, and trying to make sales without proper sanction) PCL terminated the agreement and won a large arbitral award (roughly Rs. 35 crore in damages plus other sums) against L&T. A single judge of the Delhi High Court set aside that award entirely, but the Division Bench partly restored it, upholding the finding that L&T breached the contract while setting aside the specific damages figures, prompting cross-appeals to the Supreme Court by both L&T and PCL.
The Supreme Court dismissed both sets of appeals, affirming that L&T had indeed breached the Development Agreement (including abandoning the project, defaulting on payments to the bank and statutory authorities, and undermining PCL's obligations to its former partner) and that a later "Supplementary Agreement" L&T relied on was tainted by economic duress and never validly took effect. The Court held that under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, an appellate court's powers are no broader than a court's powers under Section 34, meaning an arbitral award can be set aside for patent illegality but not modified or partly rewritten by the courts; since the Division Bench had not attempted to modify the award itself but simply left the quantification question open for the parties to pursue through appropriate proceedings, its approach was correct. The Court used the occasion to criticize the increasingly common practice of turning limited-scope arbitration appeals into full-blown factual re-arguments with excessive written submissions and case citations, calling for judicial and professional discipline to keep such proceedings within their proper limits.
Courts reviewing arbitration awards cannot rewrite or "fix" the numbers in an award, they can only uphold or strike it down for legal defects, so businesses entering arbitration should recognize that a flawed damages calculation, even in an otherwise sound award, may mean starting over rather than getting a court to simply correct the figure.
