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 construction consortium, Larsen & Toubro (an Indian company) and Scomi Engineering Bhd (a Malaysian company), had contracted with the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority to build the Mumbai Monorail. Disputes arose over claims under the contract, and the consortium approached the Supreme Court directly under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, a provision that lets a party come straight to the Supreme Court only when the dispute qualifies as an "international commercial arbitration" (i.e., at least one party is a foreign-incorporated entity). The key legal question was whether this consortium, which included a Malaysian company, qualified as such, or whether, because L&T was the lead partner with Indian-based management and control, the whole consortium should be treated as domestic for this purpose.
The Supreme Court held that where a joint venture or unincorporated consortium is formed by companies from different countries, what matters for the "international commercial arbitration" test is where the consortium's central management and control is actually exercised, not merely whether one partner is foreign-incorporated. Since the Indian partner (L&T) was the lead/controlling member, the consortium's office was in Mumbai, and the Indian partner effectively led both the contract performance and any arbitration, the Court found that central management and control rested in India, meaning this was not an "international commercial arbitration" after all. Because of that, the Supreme Court itself had no jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11, and it dismissed the petition, while clarifying the petitioner remained free to approach the appropriate (non-Supreme Court) forum on the footing that this is a domestic arbitration.
Having a foreign company as a partner in a consortium does not automatically make a contract dispute an "international commercial arbitration" eligible for direct Supreme Court intervention: courts look at where the consortium is actually managed and controlled from, and parties should be careful to approach the correct forum (ordinarily the relevant High Court) for domestic arbitration matters.
