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 fire damaged the respondent's insured plant and machinery, a dispute over the insurance claim amount went to arbitration, resulting in an award of about Rs. 44.9 lakh with interest. The insurance company sought to challenge this award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but first filed its challenge petition in a Jaipur court, which later returned it for being filed in the wrong court; by the time it was re-filed in the correct court at Jodhpur, there was a short delay. The trial court and the Rajasthan High Court rejected the company's application to exclude this period under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, treating the challenge petition as time-barred, prompting the insurance company's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which allows a litigant to exclude time spent in good faith pursuing proceedings before the wrong court, applies to petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, provided the original petition was filed within the limitation period. The Court found that the Jaipur court had not held the company's initial filing there to be made in bad faith, merely that it lacked jurisdiction, and that the resulting short 8-day delay in re-presentation at Jodhpur did not amount to a mala fide attempt to circumvent limitation. It therefore set aside both the trial court's and High Court's orders rejecting the challenge as time-barred, restored the Section 34 arbitration-challenge proceedings to the Jodhpur court, and directed that court to consider the challenge on its actual merits, leaving all other contentions open.
Time spent diligently and in good faith pursuing a case before a court that turns out to lack jurisdiction can be excluded when calculating whether a later filing is within the legal time limit: a technical, good-faith error about which court to approach should not by itself defeat an otherwise timely legal challenge.
