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 tender dispute over water-meter supply contracts between the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and a contractor led to bank-guarantee encashment proceedings before the Bombay High Court. During a hearing, a junior municipal engineer (without authority) agreed to the appointment of a retired judge as sole arbitrator, even though the contract's own clauses stated "No Arbitration is allowed." The Corporation sought to recall that order, which a single judge allowed, but a Division Bench reversed, holding the Arbitration Act did not permit a court to review its own order.
The Supreme Court held that the contract clauses in question were not arbitration clauses at all, but in-house dispute-resolution procedures with court jurisdiction retained, and that the arbitrator's appointment was never validly agreed to since the municipal officer who consented had no authority to do so. It further held that since there was no valid arbitration agreement, the Arbitration Act's bar on judicial review of its own proceedings (Section 5) did not apply, and that High Courts, being constitutional courts of record under Article 215, have an inherent power to recall and correct their own orders to prevent a miscarriage of justice. The Division Bench's order was therefore set aside, restoring the single judge's recall order, with a short continuation of the earlier interim injunction to let the respondent pursue the correct forum.
A person without actual authority to settle or agree to arbitration on an organisation's behalf cannot bind it merely by consenting in court, and higher courts retain an inherent power to recall their own mistaken orders even in matters otherwise governed by a specialised statute like the Arbitration Act.
