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 Management Company Ltd. selected ReNew Clean Energy Pvt. Ltd. through competitive bidding to supply 51 MW of solar power under a 25-year Power Purchase Agreement, backed by a bank guarantee. After the originally allotted land in Rajgarh district proved encroached and unworkable, the company permitted ReNew to relocate the project to Ashok Nagar district, where ReNew invested heavily and reached an advanced stage of commissioning. M.P. Power Management nonetheless terminated the contract in August 2017 and invoked the bank guarantee, citing delay; the Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the termination (while upholding the bank guarantee invocation), prompting this appeal.
The Supreme Court held that given ReNew's substantial investment, the unavoidable circumstances causing delay (land encroachment and resistance at the original site necessitating relocation), and the project's advanced stage of completion, terminating the contract was arbitrary and rightly set aside by the High Court. However, the Court found the contract's penalty clauses (Articles 2.5 and 2.6) did apply to the delay, and since the actual delay exceeded the nine-month permissible period under the agreement even after accounting for the relocation, ReNew remained liable to pay a penalty. The Court declined to delve further into the precise delay calculation and instead directed ReNew to pay the specific penalty amount of Rs.11,95,54,200/- already imposed by the appellant, while dismissing the appeal (i.e., confirming that the contract termination itself remained invalid).
In long-term infrastructure/power contracts, a party facing genuine, unavoidable obstacles (like disputed land or forced relocation) that delay performance may still be liable to pay contractual penalties for the delay, but that same delay does not automatically justify the other party terminating the entire contract, especially once substantial investment and progress have been made in good faith.
