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 Odisha Tahasildar of Banspal floated an auction for a long-term stone/sand quarry lease. The appellant company quoted the highest additional charge (Rs. 589) and was declared the successful bidder, submitting an income-tax return for an earlier assessment year (with a chartered accountant's clarification about filing due dates) and a GST no-dues confirmation. The second-highest bidder challenged the award, and the Orissa High Court set aside the selection and ordered a fresh tender, holding the appellant's tax return did not strictly match the required financial year and questioning the adequacy of its GST clearance verification.
The Supreme Court reversed the High Court, holding that the appellant had substantially complied with the tender conditions, since its income-tax return for the current financial year was not yet due for filing (per Section 44AB of the Income Tax Act), submitting the most recent available prior-year return, backed by a chartered accountant's certificate, was reasonable and consistent with the tender's purpose of assessing financial capability. The Court also found the appellant's GST no-dues certificate valid, whereas the rival bidder had only submitted an unofficial screenshot from the GST portal, which did not meet the tender's requirement. Since the appellant's bid was also substantially higher (benefiting the public exchequer), the Tahasildar's original selection was upheld and the High Court's order for a fresh tender was quashed.
In government tenders, courts generally defer to the tendering authority's reasonable, good-faith interpretation of technical eligibility conditions, especially where a bidder substantially complies with the underlying purpose of a requirement (like proving financial soundness), rather than mechanically disqualifying bids over rigid technicalities.
