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 moreInterstate Construction completed foundation work for National Projects Construction Corporation (NPCC) at the Ramagundam Super Thermal Power Project back in 1987, but disputes over withheld payments dragged on for decades, including multiple changes of arbitrator, before a final award was passed in 2020 by a retired High Court judge acting as sole arbitrator. The award granted interest in stages: an 18% pre-reference rate, a pendente lite rate compounding on the principal-plus-past-interest, and an 18% future-interest rate on the whole accumulated sum. NPCC challenged only the interest portion, and the Delhi High Court's Division Bench set aside those interest directions, holding the tribunal had wrongly awarded compound interest and improperly split the interest period. Interstate Construction appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Section 31(7)(a) of the Act gives an arbitral tribunal discretion to award interest for the whole or any part of the period from the cause of action to the award, meaning it can validly split that period into sub-periods with different rates, as the arbitrator had done here. The High Court was wrong to say the statute permits only a single undivided period. On the compound-interest question, the Court traced the case law (S.L. Arora, later overruled by the three-judge bench in Hyder Consulting, followed in UHL Power and S.A. Builders) to hold that the "sum" on which post-award interest is calculated under Section 31(7)(b) legitimately includes the principal plus any interest already awarded up to that point, so charging further interest on that combined sum is not unlawful "interest on interest," it is simply how the statutory formula works. The High Court's order was set aside and the original arbitral award on interest restored.
In arbitration, once a tribunal awards interest up to the date of the award, that combined amount (principal plus accrued interest) becomes the base on which further interest runs until actual payment: this is standard practice under Indian arbitration law, not an unlawful "compounding" of interest, and an arbitrator may also legitimately apply different interest rates to different phases of a long-running dispute.
