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 appellant contractor and the respondent road development corporation were in a works-contract dispute over a highway project in Madhya Pradesh, resolved through arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, resulting in an award in the contractor's favour in 2011. The respondent challenged the award years later, arguing for the first time, after a fresh Supreme Court ruling changed the legal position, that the arbitral tribunal never had jurisdiction because the dispute should instead have gone to the M.P. State Arbitration Tribunal under a separate state law, the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. Both the Commercial Court and the High Court accepted this objection and set aside the award purely on the jurisdiction point.
The Supreme Court held that since the respondent never raised any objection to the arbitral tribunal's jurisdiction at the time the tribunal was constituted, during the arbitration proceedings, or even in its initial challenge to the award, only introducing the jurisdiction argument later after a favourable change in case law, the award could not be annulled solely on that ground. The Court laid down a structured framework of when jurisdictional objections based on the state arbitration law can and cannot be raised depending on the stage of proceedings, and found this case squarely fell within the category where such a belated objection is barred. It set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the case to the Commercial Court to decide the remaining merits-based objections to the award.
A party that never raises a jurisdictional objection during arbitration proceedings, and only invokes it years later after a favourable change in the law, generally cannot use that objection to overturn an otherwise-completed arbitration award: objections to an arbitrator's authority must ordinarily be raised at the earliest opportunity.
