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 respondent had jointly participated in a bank auction for land in Hoshiarpur, Punjab, and entered into a set of 2013 agreements containing an arbitration clause to resolve related disputes. The respondent invoked arbitration in 2015; after two successive arbitrators recused themselves over bias allegations, a third arbitrator was appointed in 2017. The respondent then stopped participating in 2019, expressly telling the arbitrator by email that he would not take part further, and the arbitrator ultimately ruled against him (while allowing the appellant's claim) after giving him a final chance to revive his case, which he did not take up. The respondent subsequently filed a fresh application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking appointment of a new arbitrator over the same dispute, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court allowed it.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, holding that the respondent had clearly abandoned the earlier arbitral proceedings through his conduct, and that the principle in Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which bars a litigant from filing a fresh proceeding on the same cause of action after abandoning an earlier one without the court's leave, applies equally to applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act. The Court rejected the argument that the 2021 dismissal of a separate, related civil appeal (concerning the validity of the original land auction, brought by the land's original owners) created a fresh cause of action for the respondent, since that appeal never concerned the dispute between the appellant and respondent themselves. The subsequent Section 11 application was therefore held not maintainable and an abuse of the court's process.
A party who invokes arbitration and then walks away from the proceedings cannot later file a fresh application for appointment of a new arbitrator over the same dispute without first seeking the court's leave, doing so is treated as an abuse of process, just as it would be for a litigant who abandons and then re-files an ordinary civil suit.
