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 moreLancor Holdings (a builder) and Prem Kumar Menon and others (landowners) entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) for construction of a building, with the parties to share the built-up area. Disputes arose and the matter went to arbitration. The Arbitrator reserved the award on 28.07.2012 but delivered it only on 16.03.2016, nearly three years and eight months later, without any explanation for the delay, and without finally resolving key issues, leaving the parties in an unworkable position where they would have to start fresh proceedings.
The Supreme Court held that mere delay in pronouncing an arbitral award is not, by itself, sufficient to set the award aside; delay only vitiates an award where it demonstrably and adversely affected the arbitrator's findings. However, the Court found that this particular award was "unworkable" because it altered the parties' factual positions irrevocably (by allowing possession/construction to proceed) while leaving core disputes (relief on certain issues) unresolved, requiring fresh arbitration after 16 years, which the Court called a "travesty of justice." Rather than setting the award aside and sending parties back to square one, the Court invoked its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to fashion a final, practical resolution itself: it validated the builder's earlier (technically unlawful) sale deeds, ordered forfeiture of the builder's ₹6.82 crore security deposit as a penalty, and directed payment of a further ₹3.18 crore to the landowners (totalling ₹10 crore), after which the builder could take possession of its share.
Undue, unexplained delay by an arbitrator in delivering an award is a serious red flag, but courts will look at whether the delay actually damaged the substance of the decision, not just the calendar. Where undoing an award would trap parties in endless further litigation, the Supreme Court may use its special constitutional power to impose a complete, practical resolution instead of restarting the process from scratch.
