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 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) had engaged a Canadian engineering firm, R.V. Anderson Associates Ltd., under a 1995 World Bank-funded contract to upgrade Mumbai's sewerage operations. After completion of work in 2001, a payment dispute arose, and the firm invoked arbitration in 2005. An Arbitral Tribunal ultimately ruled in favour of the firm in 2010, and MCGM's later attempts to have that award set aside failed before a Single Judge and then a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, prompting this appeal to the Supreme Court solely on the ground that the Arbitral Tribunal itself had been improperly constituted (the third/presiding arbitrator, MCGM argued, should have been appointed by the Secretary General of ICSID rather than by the two party-nominated arbitrators).
The Supreme Court held that the contractual clause referring to ICSID appointment was an enabling provision triggered only if a party actually approached ICSID, not a mandatory requirement, and since neither party had done so, the Co-Arbitrators were entitled to appoint the presiding arbitrator. More importantly, the Court found that MCGM had, over several years and on at least three occasions, been informed of and had acquiesced in the Co-Arbitrators appointing the presiding arbitrator without ever objecting, only raising the jurisdictional challenge for the first time years later, just before filing its statement of defence. The Court held that a party's conduct and acquiescence over time is a powerful indicator of how it actually understood the contract, and cannot be undone by belatedly invoking a jurisdictional objection under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. Finding no infirmity in the concurrent findings of the Single Judge and Division Bench, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the arbitral award, with no order as to costs.
A party that stays silent and participates in a process for years despite knowing of an alleged procedural defect cannot later spring that defect as a technical objection to escape an unfavourable outcome: conduct and acquiescence carry real legal weight in how courts interpret contested contractual terms.
