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 moreSEPCO and GMR Kamalanga Energy Ltd. (GMRKE) were parties to EPC agreements for a power project. An Arbitral Tribunal passed an award largely in SEPCO's favour, which a Single Judge of the Orissa High Court upheld under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. On appeal under Section 37, a Division Bench of the High Court set aside both the Section 34 judgment and the arbitral award itself, holding that the Tribunal had treated the two parties unequally and had gone beyond its mandate. SEPCO then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined whether the Division Bench had exceeded the narrow scope of interference permitted under Sections 34 and 37. It found that the Arbitral Tribunal had discriminated between the parties (allowing SEPCO's claims despite SEPCO's own failure to issue mandatory contractual notices, while rejecting GMRKE's counter-claims for the very same failure) which violated the principle of equal treatment under Section 18 of the Act and the public policy of India. The Court also agreed that the Tribunal had effectively rewritten the contract by treating a failed Unit Characteristic Test as if the Performance Guarantee Test had been validly completed, going beyond its mandate. Given these fundamental defects, the Supreme Court held that the Division Bench was right to fully set aside the award rather than sever the bad parts from the good, and dismissed SEPCO's appeal with no order as to costs.
Courts can and will set aside an arbitral award, even though judicial interference with arbitration is meant to be minimal, where the tribunal treats the parties unequally or rewrites the contract beyond its mandate, since such defects strike at the fundamental policy and public policy of Indian law.
