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 passed an award in favour of the appellant contractor against the State of West Bengal on 12.11.2013. A signed photocopy of the award was collected the same day by a junior official (an Assistant Engineer) who was present at the proceedings but never informed his department. The State only learned of the award when the appellant began execution proceedings, and it filed its challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on 20.03.2014. The trial court held this challenge was time-barred (the 90-day limit having run from 12.11.2013), but the Calcutta High Court reversed, holding limitation only starts once the award is properly served on an actual "party" to the arbitration.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court and dismissed the contractor's appeal. It held that under Section 31(5) and Section 2(1)(h) of the Arbitration Act, a "party" means the actual party to the arbitration agreement, here the State department represented through its Secretary or Executive Engineer, not any employee or representative who merely attended proceedings or collected a copy. Relying on its earlier rulings in Tecco Trichy Engineers and Benarsi Krishna Committee, the Court held that in large organisations like government departments, the limitation clock starts only when the award reaches the person who actually has authority and knowledge to decide whether to challenge it, not a subordinate who received a photocopy informally. Since the award was never validly delivered to a competent decision-maker before the State's application, the Section 34 challenge was not time-barred.
In arbitration involving government bodies or large organisations, the limitation period to challenge an award runs from proper delivery of a signed copy to the actual decision-making authority (not any employee who happens to receive it): a lesson relevant to anyone dealing with institutional counterparties in arbitration.
