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 moreUnder a 1982 agency agreement for importing goods under import licences, a dispute arose when part of the contracted material could not be imported, leading both companies to arbitration. The two appointed arbitrators disagreed, so the matter went to an Umpire, who eventually awarded roughly Rs. 64.65 lakh with interest in favour of the respondent. The appellant-company objected, arguing the Umpire should have reheard the entire matter "de novo" (completely afresh) rather than continuing from the point of the arbitrators' disagreement, but both the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Delhi High Court rejected this and upheld the award.
The Supreme Court held that when an Umpire takes over "in lieu of the Arbitrators" under the Arbitration Act, 1940, a de novo hearing does not automatically mean restarting the entire proceeding from scratch: it means the Umpire must give the parties a fair fresh hearing on the pleadings, evidence, and record, but need not re-record all evidence unless a party specifically and timely asks for it. The Court found that the appellant's demand for a full de novo rehearing came only belatedly, after the respondent had already concluded its final arguments, and was really aimed at reopening a decision about which witness could testify, not a genuine request for a fresh hearing, amounting to a waiver by conduct. The Court further held that courts have very limited power to interfere with an arbitrator's or umpire's appraisal of evidence, and since the award disclosed no manifest error, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the award.
In arbitration, if you want a completely fresh hearing after an Umpire takes over from disagreeing arbitrators, you must ask for it clearly and at the earliest opportunity, raising it only after the other side has finished presenting its case will likely be treated as a waiver, and courts rarely second-guess an arbitrator's assessment of evidence.
