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 moreJindal Steel and Power had engaged Bansal Infra Projects to build 400 flats at its Jindal Nagar project, giving an advance secured by a bank guarantee. After repeated deadline extensions and alleged quality/performance failures, Jindal terminated the work and moved to encash the bank guarantee for unadjusted advances. Bansal filed a Section 9 arbitration petition seeking to stop the encashment; the Commercial Court refused to grant an immediate ex parte injunction and instead ordered notice to the other side. Bansal then went to the Orissa High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution (rather than appealing under the Arbitration Act), and the High Court granted interim protection against encashment, which Jindal challenged before the Supreme Court, raising several technical questions about which route of challenge was proper.
The Supreme Court noted that the parties disputed whether an order rejecting an ex parte ad interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC (issued alongside a Section 9 arbitration petition) is itself appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, or whether Article 227 was the only available route. Rather than deciding these disputed legal questions, the Court found that practical developments had overtaken the dispute: the underlying Section 9 petition was already substantially argued before the Commercial Court, an Arbitral Tribunal had since been constituted, and Bansal had repeatedly extended the bank guarantee's validity (through to 30 June 2025) so Jindal suffered no real prejudice from keeping the guarantee alive pending the Section 9 outcome. The Court therefore left the larger legal questions open, directed the Commercial Court to decide the Section 9 petition within eight weeks, and ordered the bank guarantee kept alive until then.
Courts are generally reluctant to interfere with an unconditional bank guarantee except in cases of clear fraud or irretrievable injury, but where the guarantee has been kept extended and renewed without real harm to either side, the Supreme Court may simply let the underlying dispute proceed to a prompt decision rather than resolving every procedural or jurisdictional technicality along the way.
