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 caustic soda manufacturer in Tamil Nadu was promised a concessional electricity tariff for five years from the start of commercial production under a 1976 government letter and a later tariff statute. A 1982 government order amended the tariff schedule to withdraw the concession once a unit started earning profits, and the electricity board then billed the appellants at the normal (non-concessional) rate on the ground that they had turned profitable. The companies challenged this in the High Court, arguing the State was bound by its earlier promise (promissory estoppel) and, alternatively, that they had not actually made profits, and after losing, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred the core estoppel question to this larger bench.
The Supreme Court held that promissory estoppel cannot be invoked to prevent the State from withdrawing a tariff concession, because a concession granted under a statute is not an enforceable right but a defeasible privilege that can be withdrawn by the same statutory power that granted it, relying on earlier rulings that there can be no estoppel against a statute and that recipients of a concession only have a right to enjoy it while it lasts. The Court also rejected the appellants' alternative argument that they had not actually earned profits, holding that profitability was properly assessed on an industry-wide basis (not isolated to one unit) and that it is for the State, not the courts, to decide tariff policy. All three connected appeals were accordingly dismissed as without merit.
A business cannot rely on "promissory estoppel" to permanently lock in a government concession or subsidy: concessions granted under statutory power remain subject to being withdrawn by that same power once the conditions attached to them (such as the business becoming profitable) are met.
