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 moreDhansar Engineering had contracted with Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. (MCL, a Coal India subsidiary) to extract and transfer coal at an Open Cast Project using hired "Surface Miners." After MCL extended the contract period and then allotted 30% extra work shortly before the extended period's expiry, Dhansar, citing mounting financial losses on the low contracted rate, withdrew from the work without completing the extra quantity, forcing MCL to get the remaining work done by a third party at a higher rate. MCL then demanded recovery of the cost difference plus a contractual penalty, which Dhansar challenged in a writ petition before the Orissa High Court; the High Court quashed MCL's entire demand, and MCL appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had misread the contract: Clause 5 entitled MCL to vary the work quantity by up to 30% at any time while the contract was still subsisting, and the 45-day notice requirement applied only to increases in daily machine capacity, not to this kind of quantity variation. Since Dhansar had agreed to the contract extension and then failed to complete the extra allotted work, it was contractually liable to compensate MCL for the resulting financial loss (the rate difference paid to the third-party contractor), and the High Court was wrong to quash that demand entirely. The Court reversed the High Court's judgment and allowed MCL to recover that compensation, but on the separate, narrower question of whether the specific penalty amount/quantum (as opposed to the cost-recovery itself) was fair, it left that open, giving Dhansar liberty to make a representation to MCL on the penalty's justness, expressly stating it was "not expressing any opinion one way or the other on the issue of penalty amount."
A party who agrees to extend a contract cannot later walk away from the extended obligations merely because the contracted rate turns out to be commercially unfavorable; and courts reviewing contractual terms must read the full agreement together rather than isolating a single clause to defeat a party's contractual rights.
