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 morePowergrid Corporation of India, a public sector transmission utility, operated Inter-State Transmission System assets including Interconnecting Transformers (ICTs) at Rihand. Several ICTs were damaged by an internal fire/explosion and had to be replaced. Powergrid sought to recover the replacement cost by "decapitalizing" the damaged ICTs and "additionally capitalizing" the new ones (which would have let it earn a return on the new assets), separately from its existing self-insurance fund. The Central Electricity Regulatory Commission rejected this claim, and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity upheld the rejection, prompting Powergrid's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Court held that the fire, and the resulting damage, was squarely covered by Powergrid's own self-insurance policy, which it maintained precisely for this kind of loss as part of its operation and maintenance charges. Since the self-insurance fund reserve was found to already cover the net replacement cost of the damaged ICTs, allowing a separate decapitalization/additional-capitalization claim on top of that would have meant double recovery for the same loss. The Court found the Appellate Tribunal's reasoning cogent and saw no ground to interfere, dismissing both appeals with no order as to costs.
A regulated utility that maintains a self-insurance reserve for asset damage cannot separately claim additional capitalization for replacing the same damaged equipment: the self-insurance fund is meant to absorb exactly that cost, and claiming both would amount to recovering the same expense twice from consumers/tariff.
