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 moreThis is a sequel to Civil Appeal No. 6158 of 2013, which the Supreme Court had already decided on 24.4.2015, setting aside an arbitral award on "Claim No. 8" in favour of National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). At the interim stage, NHAI had deposited about Rs. 70.65 lakh, which the respondent (NCC-KNR JV) had withdrawn in December 2012 on furnishing a bank guarantee. After the 2015 judgment went against the respondent, the respondent repaid the principal amount, but NHAI filed fresh applications (I.A. Nos. 4 and 5 of 2015) seeking interest on that amount for the roughly three years the respondent had held and used it.
The Supreme Court noted that the underlying Arbitral Tribunal award (dated 9.1.2012) had itself fixed interest at 12% per annum on amounts awarded under various claims, and that NHAI's claim concerned only Claim No. 8, which had been set aside in NHAI's favour. The Court held that since the respondent's entitlement to the withdrawn amount had been negated by the 2015 judgment, fairness required the respondent to pay back the amount together with interest at the same 12% rate that applied under the original award. It accordingly directed the respondent to pay 12% annual interest on Rs. 70,65,039 from the date of withdrawal until the date it was actually repaid, within six weeks, and disposed of both interlocutory applications.
When a party has benefited from money paid out under an interim arbitral/court order that is later reversed, courts will generally require that money to be returned with interest at the same rate fixed in the original award: simply returning the principal is not treated as sufficient once the underlying entitlement has been negated.
