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 moreM.P. Power Generation Co. Ltd. (the Board, formerly the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board) contracted with the Italian company Ansaldo Energia to refurbish two units of a thermal power plant, with the Board warranting that the units could actually operate at their rated 120 MW capacity. After disputes arose over missing technical records and a required "Letter of Comfort" from a financial institution, Ansaldo treated the contract as terminated and the Board invoked bank guarantees and also issued its own termination notice; an Arbitral Tribunal later ruled largely in Ansaldo's favour, finding the Board had misrepresented the plant's capacity and wrongfully terminated the contract, and a trial court and then the High Court disagreed with each other on whether that award should stand.
The Supreme Court held that courts have only limited power to interfere with an arbitral award: they cannot re-examine the facts or substitute their own view for a reasonable one taken by the arbitrator, and can step in only for reasons like patent illegality or a result that shocks the conscience of the court. Applying that limited standard, the Court agreed with the Arbitral Tribunal's factual findings that the Board had made a genuine misrepresentation about the plant's 120 MW operating capacity and had failed to supply a required Letter of Comfort, and that the Board's termination of the contract was therefore unlawful. However, the Court modified the award on one specific point, holding that Ansaldo was not entitled to recover two particular bank guarantee amounts because those amounts represented money the Board had actually advanced to Ansaldo. With that one modification, the Court upheld the balance of the Arbitral Tribunal's award and dismissed the Board's appeal.
Courts reviewing an arbitration award will not reopen the underlying factual findings or substitute their own judgment for the arbitrator's reasonable view: an award can be fine-tuned on a narrow, clearly wrong point, but a losing party cannot use a court appeal to relitigate the whole dispute.
