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 moreSerosoft Solutions (an educational-software startup) and Dexter Capital Advisors (a capital advisory firm) were in arbitration over a fee dispute under their Client Service Agreement. During the arbitration, Dexter's counsel cross-examined Serosoft's witness (RW-1) over multiple sittings totalling more than 12 hours across several months. When Dexter sought yet another opportunity to continue the cross-examination after the Tribunal had already discharged the witness and set a timeline for concluding the case, the Arbitral Tribunal refused, holding "that far and no further." Dexter then approached the Delhi High Court under Article 227, which directed the Tribunal to allow further cross-examination, prompting Serosoft to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Section 18 of the Arbitration Act requires equal treatment of parties and a full opportunity to present one's case, but this is balanced by Section 5's mandate of minimal judicial interference in arbitral proceedings. Reviewing the record, the Court found the Tribunal had already given Dexter ample, indeed excessive, opportunity (over 12 hours of cross-examination), and that the High Court had not identified any perversity in the Tribunal's order, merely repeating the general principle that cross-examination is valuable without showing the Tribunal had actually denied a fair opportunity. Since interference under Articles 226/227 is permissible only where an order is "completely perverse," and no such perversity was shown, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the Tribunal to resume and conclude proceedings expeditiously.
Courts should exercise extreme restraint before interfering with an arbitral tribunal's procedural rulings: such interference is reserved for cases of stark perversity or bad faith, not merely because a party feels it needs more time, since excessive judicial intervention undermines the efficiency that arbitration is meant to provide.
