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 moreAfter a municipal council auctioned shops that were allegedly not delivered on time or with proper amenities, an arbitrator awarded the successful bidders 7% annual interest on their advance rent and security deposit until possession was handed over, plus 12% interest as damages. This award survived challenges up to the Supreme Court and became final. At the execution stage, however, a dispute arose over whether that 7% interest should be simple interest or compound interest calculated at quarterly or yearly intervals: the Executing Court read it as yearly compounding, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court later changed this to quarterly compounding.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the bidders were entitled to post-award interest under Section 31(7)(b) of the Arbitration Act as a general legal principle, following its own precedent in Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. Governor, State of Orissa. However, on the compounding question, the Court held that both the Executing Court and the High Court had erred: the original arbitral award said only "interest at 7% per annum," with no mention anywhere of quarterly or yearly compounding, and an execution court cannot add terms to an award that the arbitrator never actually specified. The Court therefore held the interest must be read as simple interest at 7% per annum, not compound interest, for both the pre-award and post-award periods, and the appeals were partly allowed with this modification.
When enforcing a court or arbitral award, the executing authority cannot "fill in the gaps" by assuming a more generous interpretation (like compound interest) that the original award never actually stated: execution must strictly track what was awarded, nothing more.
