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 moreHeavy Engineering Corporation (HEC) had advanced money to a supplier, Simon Carves India Ltd. (SCIL), for plant and equipment under a 1981 letter of intent, backed by two unconditional bank guarantees issued by the appellant's predecessor bank. When SCIL failed to properly supply and install the equipment, causing HEC significant losses, HEC invoked the guarantees, but the Bank refused to honour them, arguing the invocation did not properly specify or apportion the type of loss covered. HEC sued and, after losing before a Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, won before the Division Bench, which held the guarantees were validly invoked and decreed over Rs. 1.1 crore with interest in HEC's favour; the Bank then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reiterated settled law that a bank guarantee is an independent contract between the bank and the beneficiary, which the bank must honour on demand according to its own terms regardless of any underlying dispute between the beneficiary and the party on whose behalf the guarantee was given, subject only to narrow exceptions for fraud, irretrievable injustice, or special equities, none of which the Bank had established here. It found that while HEC's very first demand letter was vague, its subsequent letters clearly explained that losses arose from SCIL's defective and incomplete supply of plant and equipment, which was sufficient to satisfy the guarantees' terms. Since the Bank's refusal did not fall within any recognized exception, the Court held it had no right to second-guess the validity of HEC's invocation once a compliant demand was made, and upheld the Calcutta High Court's decree. The Bank's appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
A bank that issues an unconditional guarantee cannot refuse to pay out once the beneficiary makes a demand that reasonably complies with the guarantee's terms: the bank cannot arbitrate the merits of the underlying contractual dispute itself, and courts will intervene to stop encashment only in rare cases of fraud or serious injustice.
