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 moreIn a West Bengal government e-tender, Mandeepa Enterprises (respondent no.1) mistakenly quoted its price as a per-day rate instead of the rate for the entire 1095-day contract period, making its bid appear far too low. When the State refused to let it correct the figure and treat it as the highest bidder, Mandeepa filed a writ petition, which a Single Judge dismissed but a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowed, directing the tendering authority to recompute Mandeepa's bid using the corrected figure and to give other bidders a chance to match it. Prakash Asphaltings, the appellant here and the actual highest bidder (H1) under the original terms, had not been made a party to that High Court proceeding and challenged the Division Bench's order before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the tender's own bidding instructions could not be stretched to reinterpret Mandeepa's declared price bid as a per-day figure contrary to what it had actually submitted, especially where Mandeepa had shown a casual approach rather than vigilance in reviewing its bid. The Court emphasised that constitutional courts must exercise restraint in interfering with tender processes unless a high threshold of judicial review is met, and that the sanctity of the tender process and fairness to all bidders must be protected. Because the appellant, whose H1 status was directly and adversely affected, had never been impleaded or heard by the High Court, its judgment was found to violate natural justice and was set aside, restoring the original tender evaluation.
A bidder cannot be granted relief that effectively rewrites its own tender submission after the fact, and any party whose commercial position will be directly hurt by a court's order in a tender dispute must be given a chance to be heard before that order is passed.
