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 moreThe appellant-contractor won an arbitral award of over Rs. 2.87 crore against the West Bengal government for work done on a highway repair project after years of delayed payment. While the State's challenge to the award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was pending, the appellant sought execution, and the Calcutta High Court eventually granted the State an unconditional stay of the award relying on Order XXVII Rule 8A CPC (which exempts the government from furnishing security). The contractor appealed, arguing the government was not entitled to an automatic, unconditional stay merely because it is the government.
The Supreme Court held that Section 36(3) of the Arbitration Act gives courts discretion to grant a stay "subject to such conditions as it may deem fit," and the reference to CPC provisions in the proviso is only directory ("have due regard to"), not mandatory, so the Arbitration Act's own framework governs, not an automatic CPC exemption. It held that Order XXVII Rule 8A CPC (a 1937, British-era provision exempting government from furnishing security) only excuses the government from furnishing security, but does not stop a court from directing deposit of part or all of the awarded sum under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC, and that Section 18 of the Arbitration Act mandates equal treatment of all parties, including the government. Finding no special treatment for the government is warranted in arbitration stay matters, the Court quashed the High Court's unconditional stay order and restored the executing court's earlier order allowing the contractor to seek release of the attached funds.
Government bodies do not get an automatic, unconditional stay of an arbitral money award merely by filing a challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act: courts can and should impose conditions (such as a partial deposit) just as they would for a private litigant, since the Arbitration Act treats all parties equally.
