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 moreR.K. Pandey, a hospital lab technician whose employer was taken over by the UP government in the 1950s-60s, filed a writ petition in 1997 disputing his retirement age. While that petition was still pending (it was withdrawn only in 2009), he separately invoked a purported 1957 "arbitration agreement" between the hospital's erstwhile administrator and the State, unilaterally appointed his own arbitrators, and obtained two large ex-parte monetary awards (over Rs. 26 lakh and Rs. 20 lakh with interest) against the State, which the State's objections to enforce were dismissed by courts below as time-barred.
The Supreme Court found the entire arbitration to be a fraud: the alleged 1957 agreement was not on the record of either the Municipal Corporation or the State, was never mentioned in Pandey's own 1997 writ petition or subsequent correspondence for over a decade, and surfaced only when he unilaterally sought to invoke it in 2008. Since Pandey was not even a signatory to the purported agreement and the parties named in it never invoked the arbitration clause, there was no valid "existence" of an arbitration agreement: a legal prerequisite for any award to be enforceable. The Court held that fraud vitiates everything and can be raised even at the execution stage under Section 47 CPC on the ground of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, regardless of any limitation bar on formal objections. Both ex-parte awards were declared null, void, and unenforceable, and the execution proceedings were dismissed with costs to the State.
An arbitration award built on a fabricated or unproven arbitration agreement can be challenged as void for lack of jurisdiction even at the execution stage, and even if formal objections were technically time-barred. Courts will not let procedural limitation shield a fraudulently obtained award.
