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 moreUjjain Municipal Corporation floated a tender for door-to-door municipal solid waste collection and awarded the 10-year contract to Global Waste Management Cell Pvt. Ltd., the highest-scoring bidder on a weighted 80% technical/20% financial basis, after evaluation by an appointed technical expert. The unsuccessful second-ranked bidder, BVG India Limited, challenged the award in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which set aside the award, re-scored the technical and financial bids itself, and ruled in BVG's favour. The Municipal Corporation and Global Waste Management Cell appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that courts exercising judicial review over a public tender cannot sit as an appellate authority re-evaluating technical and financial bid scores assigned by a qualified technical expert: interference is justified only where the decision-making process is shown to be arbitrary, irrational, mala fide, or intended to favour someone, none of which was established here. The Court found the High Court had itself erred in its financial-bid calculation (reaching 0.85 marks instead of the correct 17 marks for the winning bidder) and had wrongly treated a document as relied upon by the technical expert when it was in fact submitted only later in the High Court proceedings. Because public interest in timely, competent solid-waste management favoured deference to the expert evaluation, especially given BVG India's history of 73 show-cause notices from other municipal corporations for non-performance, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the Municipal Corporation's and Global Waste Management's appeals (Civil Appeal Nos. 3330 and 3331 of 2018). A separate correction order dated 28.03.2018 fixed a typographical omission in the original judgment, clarifying that BVG India's own appeal (Civil Appeal No. 3332 of 2018) was correspondingly dismissed.
Courts will generally not second-guess a technical expert's scoring of competing bids in a government tender unless the decision-making process itself is shown to be arbitrary, biased, or made in bad faith: an unsuccessful bidder cannot use litigation to re-run the technical evaluation in its own favour.
