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 moreAn arbitrator had ruled in favour of Lion Engineering Consultants in a dispute over a works contract. The State of Madhya Pradesh challenged the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act before the trial court, and after three years sought to amend its objections: a request the trial court rejected but the High Court allowed under Article 227 of the Constitution. Lion Engineering appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the amendment was time-barred and that a jurisdictional objection not raised before the arbitrator under Section 16 could not later be raised under Section 34.
The State's counsel ultimately did not press the amendment, which the Court agreed should not be allowed as it was beyond limitation, rendering that specific issue moot. On the broader legal question, the Court held that a plea regarding jurisdiction can be raised as an objection under Section 34 even if it was not first raised under Section 16 of the Act. The Court also expressly overruled paragraphs 16 and 17 of its earlier decision in MSP Infrastructure Ltd. v. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Ltd., clarifying that "public policy of India" under the Act refers to law in force in India generally, State law as well as Central law, not only all-India law. Having decided these points, the Court set aside the High Court's impugned order and disposed of the appeal, while leaving the State's remaining Section 34 objections (including whether the Central Arbitration Act is excluded by a State tribunal law) to be argued before the trial court.
A party challenging an arbitration award is not necessarily barred from raising a jurisdiction-related objection in court under Section 34 merely because it wasn't first raised before the arbitrator under Section 16, and "public policy of India," for arbitration purposes, covers State laws too, not just central legislation.
