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 moreGSPC Pipavav Power Company Ltd. (GPPC), which runs a 702.86 MW gas-based power plant, floated a tender for operation and maintenance services, to be evaluated on a Quality and Cost Based System (70% technical score, 30% price score). Of three qualifying bidders, STEAG Energy Services narrowly outscored a rival bidder (O&M Solutions Pvt. Ltd., the writ petitioner) on both technical marks (95 vs 93 out of 100) and price score, and was awarded the Letter of Award, after which it mobilised manpower, took over the plant, and executed a formal contract. The unsuccessful bidder challenged the tender evaluation as arbitrary before the Gujarat High Court, which set aside the award in its favour; STEAG and GPPC then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal concerning the main award (Special Civil Application No. 7289 of 2025) and set aside the High Court's judgment, while separately dismissing STEAG's appeal on a narrower technical-marks dispute (Special Civil Application No. 12328 of 2025) after finding the High Court's specific factual finding on that point correct. On the central issue, the Court reaffirmed the well-established principle of judicial restraint in reviewing tender/contract awards by government instrumentalities: courts should not act as an appellate technical evaluator, should give "fair play in the joints" to the tendering authority, and should intervene only where the process is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or grossly unfair, not merely because the scoring margin between bidders was small. It held that the tender document itself vested the final choice in the owner (GPPC), which reserved the right to accept or reject any bid, and that unsettling a contract already a year into execution would cause needless delay and public expense.
Courts exercise significant restraint when reviewing the award of government tenders and will not re-score or second-guess a technical evaluation merely because the margin between bidders was narrow; interference is reserved for cases of clear arbitrariness, mala fide conduct, or gross procedural unfairness, and the practical cost of unsettling an already-executing contract is a relevant factor against judicial intervention.
