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 moreMMTC Ltd. had a 1993 agreement with Sterlite Industries (later renamed Vedanta Ltd.) to act as a consignment agent for selling copper rods, under which MMTC would collect advance payment from customers before passing on proceeds to Vedanta. A later amendment allowed sales against letters of credit instead of advance payment. One customer (HTPL) failed to honour its letters of credit, and a dispute arose over whether MMTC was liable to Vedanta for the unrecovered amount, which went to arbitration. A Majority Arbitral Award went against MMTC, and both a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court upheld that award, leading to MMTC's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reviewed MMTC's correspondence with Vedanta, including letters admitting that the HTPL transaction fell under the 1993 agreement and acknowledging a duty to recover dues from HTPL. The Court found that MMTC had failed to ensure the letters of credit were honoured, amounting to negligence, and that the dispute was clearly governed by the arbitration clause in the 1993 agreement. Applying the limited scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37, the Court held that the Majority Award reflected a possible and reasonable view of the contract and evidence, and declined to disturb it. The appeal was dismissed and the High Court's order affirming the award was upheld.
Courts exercising their limited supervisory jurisdiction over arbitral awards will not re-appreciate evidence or substitute their own view for a plausible one taken by the arbitrator; a party's own correspondence admitting liability under a contract can be decisive in such disputes.
