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 moreMunicipal Council Neemuch (Madhya Pradesh) invited tenders to lease a large plot of commercial-cum-residential land for 30 years. Mahadeo Real Estate (respondent No. 1) submitted the highest bid of about Rs. 5.81 crore and deposited earnest money and part of the bid amount after its bid was accepted. However, objections were raised about the tender process, the Collector stayed proceedings, and the matter went to the State Government, whose Commissioner ultimately found irregularities (including inadequate publicity and possible bid-rigging) and directed fresh, wider tendering. Mahadeo challenged this in the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which ruled in its favour and quashed the decision to re-tender; the Municipal Council then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded the proper scope of judicial review over government contractual/tender decisions, which is limited to checking for illegality, irrationality, mala fides or procedural impropriety, not to second-guessing the wisdom of an administrative decision. The Court found that both the Commissioner and the State Government had acted properly and in the public interest by seeking re-tendering to secure a better price and wider competition for public property, and that nothing about their decision was illegal, improper, unreasonable or irrational. It held the High Court had wrongly substituted its own view for that of the authorities. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside both impugned High Court orders, dismissed the respondent's writ petition, and directed the Municipal Council to refund the amount Mahadeo had deposited, with 6% annual interest.
Courts will not interfere with a government body's commercial/tender decisions just because a disappointed bidder disagrees with the outcome: judicial review of such decisions is narrow and only kicks in where there is actual illegality, irrationality, or unfairness in the process, not merely because re-tendering might inconvenience the highest original bidder.
