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 morePower Grid Corporation, a central transmission utility, built inter-state transmission assets at Indore under an approved scheme, but Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company (the intra-state utility) delayed constructing its own connecting line, delaying the whole project's commissioning by several weeks to months. Power Grid asked the CERC to approve a later "commercial operation date" and to fix transmission charges to be paid by the party responsible for the delay. The CERC granted Power Grid liberty to claim compensation from the state utility, which then challenged the CERC's jurisdiction to do so before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which entertained the writ petition and ruled against the CERC's approach.
The Supreme Court examined the relationship between Section 79 (CERC's general regulatory and adjudicatory powers) and Section 178 (CERC's power to frame regulations) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and held that ordering compensation/transmission charges against the party responsible for delay is a regulatory function that falls squarely within CERC's power under Section 79(1): a specific, ad hoc power distinct from CERC's general rule-making power under Section 178. It held the High Court was wrong to entertain a writ petition on this issue at all, since an appeal lay to the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) under Section 111 of the Act, and there was no procedural unfairness in how CERC had proceeded. It set aside the High Court's judgment and dismissed the writ petitions, while leaving it open to the state utility to actually contest the merits of its liability before APTEL.
When a specialised regulator like CERC has the power to decide a dispute and a statutory appeal route (to a tribunal like APTEL) exists, parties should generally use that route rather than going straight to a High Court's writ jurisdiction, bypassing the specialised forum is usually not permitted just because a party disagrees with the regulator's order.
