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 had insured its stock of coal and lignite against fire and allied perils, including an add-on cover for spontaneous combustion. After the factory reopened following a closure, part of the stock was found damaged by spontaneous combustion, and the appellant notified the insurer about a month later. The insurer's surveyor assessed the loss at over Rs. 63 lakh, but the insurer repudiated the claim solely on the ground that the spontaneous combustion had not resulted in actual fire. When the matter reached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), the insurer additionally argued, for the first time, that the claim intimation was late under the policy's notice clause, and the NCDRC dismissed the complaint on that new ground.
The Supreme Court held that an insurer cannot raise a fresh ground of repudiation before a consumer forum if that ground was never mentioned in its original repudiation letter, doing so is legally impermissible even if the insurer is not technically "estopped" merely by appointing a surveyor. Relying on its earlier ruling in Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (and distinguishing a later three-judge bench ruling in Sonell Clocks that had limited Galada to its facts), the Court clarified that while appointing a surveyor alone doesn't waive an insurer's right to later raise a valid defence, an insurer is still barred from introducing an entirely new repudiation ground at the litigation stage that wasn't in the original rejection letter. Since the insurer's original repudiation letter mentioned only the "no actual fire" ground and never cited delayed intimation, the NCDRC erred in dismissing the claim on the delay ground. The appeal was allowed, the NCDRC's order was set aside, and the insurer was directed to pay the surveyor-assessed amount of Rs. 63,43,679 with 8% interest from the date of the original claim petition, within eight weeks.
An insurance company must state all its grounds for rejecting a claim in the repudiation letter itself: it cannot ambush a policyholder with new, previously unmentioned reasons once the dispute reaches court or a consumer forum.
