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 contractor won an arbitral award of roughly Rs. 9.97 crore against the Union of India over a tsunami-relief housing project in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The Union of India first wrongly challenged the award in the wrong court (Port Blair District Court, where it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction), and only then filed before the Calcutta High Court, nearly 514 days after receiving the award, seeking condonation of the delay. The High Court condoned the delay and allowed the challenge to proceed, prompting the contractor to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act sets an absolute, non-extendable outer limit of three months plus thirty days for challenging an arbitral award, and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act (general condonation of delay) does not apply to such applications, per its own earlier ruling in Popular Construction Company. While Section 14 of the Limitation Act (excluding time spent bona fide in a wrong court) could be given to the Union of India for the time spent before the District Judge, even after that exclusion a delay of 131 days remained, which exceeded the statutory cap and could not be condoned. The Court therefore set aside the High Court's order condoning the delay, allowed the contractor's appeal, and dismissed the Union of India's challenge to the award as time-barred.
When a law prescribes an absolute, capped deadline (such as the "three months plus thirty days, but not thereafter" rule for challenging arbitral awards), courts cannot extend it further on general "sufficient cause" grounds: administrative delay, even by a government department, is not an excuse once that statutory cap is crossed.
