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 moreA sugar cooperative factory contracted with a machinery supplier in 1992 to build a fermentation plant guaranteed to yield 280 litres of alcohol per metric tonne of molasses, for about Rs. 93.20 lakhs. The plant was delivered late and, across several trial runs, never came close to the guaranteed yield. After decades of arbitration and litigation - including an earlier round that reached the Supreme Court and was sent back for fresh arbitration - the key dispute that survived was the cooperative's claim for Rs. 68.15 lakhs as a refund of money spent on a plant it said was effectively "scrap."
The Supreme Court held that because the contract itself contained a detailed liquidated-damages clause (Clause 15) covering delay and non-performance, and the cooperative had already been awarded damages under that clause, Section 74 of the Contract Act confined it to what the contract expressly provided. The Court noted the cooperative never invoked Clause 21, which would have let it replace the defective machinery itself and recover the actual replacement cost from the supplier - instead it simply claimed a refund of everything it had spent, which was not the remedy the contract or the law allowed once liquidated damages had already been fixed and paid. Finding no error in the High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Where a contract fixes a specific liquidated-damages remedy for non-performance, a party generally cannot later claim a full refund of money spent instead - it must pursue the remedy the contract actually provides (here, replacing the defective goods and claiming actual replacement cost), or its recovery is capped by the agreed clause.
