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 moreA civil contractor, M/s Harish Chandra & Company, had executed two agreements with the State of U.P. (Irrigation Department) in 1979-80 for earthwork and drainage construction under the Khara Hydel Scheme. Disputes arose over completion, payment, and deductions, and the matter went to arbitration; the sole arbitrator in 1995 allowed three of the contractor's claims (awarding roughly Rs. 55.6 lakh) and rejected the State's counter-claims entirely. The Civil Judge, Dehradun upheld the award in 1996, but the High Court of Uttarakhand, on the State's appeal, set the award aside in 2007, holding that the arbitrator had "misconducted himself" by travelling beyond the agreement's terms. The contractor appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's order (a connected, duplicate SLP by the same contractor was separately withdrawn with liberty to pursue a review before the High Court).
The Supreme Court held that under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, a court examining objections to an award cannot sit as an appellate court re-appreciating evidence; interference is permissible only where the arbitrator's reasoning is perverse, legally impossible, or based on a wrong proposition of law. Reviewing the arbitrator's reasoned award claim-by-claim, the Court found no perversity or legal misconduct: the arbitrator had considered the oral and documentary evidence and arrived at one of the possible reasonable views. It therefore held that the High Court had erred by effectively re-deciding the merits as a first appellate court, allowed the contractor's appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the Trial Court's decree upholding the arbitral award. The connected, separately-filed SLP (No. 23950/2007) by the same contractor was permitted to be withdrawn, with liberty to pursue a review petition before the High Court if needed.
Courts reviewing an arbitral award under the (now repealed) Arbitration Act, 1940 have a very narrow scope of interference: they cannot re-weigh the evidence like an appellate court, and an award can only be upset for genuine legal misconduct or perversity, not merely because the arbitrator's view differs from what a judge might have decided.
