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 moreThe Institute of Nano Science and Technology, Mohali invited tenders for a roughly Rs. 162-crore construction project, requiring bidders to show "similar work" experience (large institutional/educational building campuses). Three separate expert bodies found that Deepak Builders (Respondent No. 1) did not meet this eligibility bar, and its bid was rejected in favour of the appellant, Sam Built Well. A High Court Single Judge upheld the rejection, but a Division Bench reversed that decision and found Deepak Builders eligible, leading the authority to award it the contract.
The Supreme Court restored the Single Judge's ruling and set aside the Division Bench's decision, holding that courts exercising judicial review over technical tender evaluations must defer to the tendering authority's own expert assessment unless that assessment is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or perverse: none of which the Division Bench had found here. Since three independent expert committees had all concluded that Deepak Builders' prior projects did not qualify as "similar work" under the tender conditions, the Division Bench had overstepped by substituting its own technical judgment. The contract award to Deepak Builders was set aside and the award to the original appellant restored, with the Court also noting the appellant's offer to match the lower price quoted by Deepak Builders.
Courts will not second-guess an employer's or tendering authority's technical evaluation of bid eligibility in government contracts unless there is clear evidence of bad faith or an irrational/perverse decision: honest disagreement with a reasonable technical judgment is not a ground for judicial interference.
