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 moreThe Jammu & Kashmir police invited tenders for supplying vehicles to transport troops and equipment. The appellant's bid was accepted as the lowest among technically qualified bidders and it was awarded the contract, but a rival bidder (J.K. Roadways) challenged this in the High Court, arguing it had been wrongly disqualified and that the appellant did not actually meet the tender's eligibility conditions on vehicle ownership and work experience. A Single Judge upheld the contract award, but the High Court's Division Bench reversed this, quashing the appellant's contract and ordering fresh tenders.
The Supreme Court held that courts must generally defer to the tendering authority's own reasonable interpretation of its tender conditions unless that interpretation is perverse or made in bad faith, and that the Division Bench had wrongly substituted its own reading of a technical condition (requiring vehicles of "both HMV/LMV" type) for the tendering authority's plausible interpretation. Similarly, the Division Bench had improperly second-guessed the expert four-member Tender Opening Committee's assessment that the appellant met the required work-experience condition. Because neither of the Division Bench's grounds for disqualifying the appellant held up, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment and restored the Single Judge's ruling upholding the contract award to the appellant.
When a dispute arises over who qualifies for a government contract, courts will usually step back and respect the tendering authority's own technical judgment and interpretation of its tender conditions, intervening only where the decision is clearly arbitrary, irrational, or made in bad faith, not merely because a different interpretation was also possible.
