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 moreNabha Power Limited (NPL) and Talwandi Sabo Power Limited (TSPL), special purpose vehicles set up to build coal thermal power projects in Punjab through competitive bidding, had Power Purchase Agreements with Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL). Both claimed that changes to "deemed export" fiscal incentives under the Foreign Trade Policy, introduced through notifications by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade and a Cabinet decision after their bids were submitted, amounted to a "Change in Law" event under their PPAs entitling them to compensation. The Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission rejected their claims, and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) upheld that rejection in a common judgment, prompting both companies to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the notifications the appellants relied on were merely clarificatory in nature and did not change or introduce any new legal position: no prior interpretation of law had ever entitled such developers to import goods for assembly into a power plant and simultaneously claim deemed export benefits on those imports. The Court further reasoned that even assuming, hypothetically, that the notifications did constitute a "Change in Law," the appellants were never entitled to the deemed export benefits in the first place because they had not met the underlying eligibility prerequisites, making the "Change in Law" argument academic and irrelevant to the outcome. Since the first two issues failed, the claim for restitutionary compensation necessarily failed too, and the Court found no ground to interfere with APTEL's judgment, dismissing both appeals as devoid of merit with no order as to costs.
A party cannot claim compensation for a "change in law" disturbing a benefit it was never actually eligible for in the first place: eligibility for the underlying benefit must be established before any change affecting it can be treated as compensable.
