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 moreONGC Petro Additions Limited (OPaL) invited tenders for construction of a High Density Poly Ethylene plant at its Dahej Petrochemical Complex, and Daelim Industrial Company Limited of Korea submitted a bid. OPaL accepted the bid and issued a "Notification of Award" dated 6.1.2011, which under the tender conditions constituted a binding contract between the parties, and Daelim acknowledged this notification. A dispute subsequently arose between the parties, and since the arbitration clause required a three-member tribunal with each side nominating one arbitrator, the two party-nominated arbitrators (Justice V.N. Khare and Peter Leaver Q.C.) could not agree on a presiding arbitrator, prompting OPaL to approach the Supreme Court for appointment of the presiding arbitrator.
The Supreme Court held that the Notification of Award, read with the tender clauses, had concluded a binding contract between OPaL and Daelim, and that the parties were governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Since the two nominated arbitrators had not reached consensus on a presiding arbitrator, the Court exercised its statutory power to make the appointment itself, naming Mr. Justice R.V. Raveendran (a retired Supreme Court judge) as the presiding arbitrator. The Court directed that the presiding arbitrator could fix his own terms of engagement, that the arbitral tribunal should commence proceedings after consultation among all three arbitrators, and recorded the parties' agreement that the arbitration venue would be Singapore.
When arbitrators nominated by each side to a contract cannot agree on a presiding arbitrator, either party can approach the Supreme Court (for an arbitration with an international element) to have the presiding arbitrator appointed, keeping the arbitration process moving rather than letting a stalemate block it indefinitely.
