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 and the respondents were partners under a Partnership Agreement of 2005 whose arbitration clause referred disputes to arbitration "in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940", even though the agreement was signed well after the newer 1996 Arbitration Act had come into force. When the respondents later sued the appellant in civil court, he asked the court to refer the matter to arbitration instead, but both the trial court and the Bombay High Court refused, reasoning that citing the repealed 1940 Act made the whole arbitration clause invalid or unworkable.
The Supreme Court held that a mistaken or outdated reference to the 1940 Act in an arbitration clause does not invalidate the parties' underlying agreement to arbitrate, so long as it otherwise satisfies the basic requirements of a valid "arbitration agreement" under Section 7 of the 1996 Act (a written agreement between parties to refer disputes to arbitration). Since no arbitration had actually commenced before the 1996 Act took effect, Section 85(2)(a) of that Act meant the 1996 Act alone would govern any arbitration now undertaken, regardless of what the clause said about the old law. The Court found the High Court had misread its own precedent (Thyssen Stahlunion) and clarified that the correct approach favours enforcing the parties' clear intent to arbitrate rather than defeating it over a drafting slip. It set aside the High Court's order, allowed the appeal, and directed the parties to appear before the trial court so the dispute could be referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the 1996 Act.
A contract clause that mistakenly cites an old or repealed law when agreeing to arbitrate disputes is not automatically void: courts will look at the parties' real intent to resolve disputes outside litigation and apply the currently applicable arbitration law, rather than letting a technical drafting error defeat an otherwise valid arbitration agreement.
