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 moreTata Power Company (TPC) generated electricity for Mumbai city, while BSES (later Reliance Energy, now Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd.) distributed electricity to Mumbai's suburbs and bought bulk power from TPC. To cover TPC's own standby-capacity costs with the Maharashtra State Electricity Board, TPC sought to recover a share of these "standby charges" from BSES/REL. The Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) had determined how these charges should be shared, and both TPC and BSES/REL filed cross-appeals before the Supreme Court challenging the apportionment.
The Supreme Court accepted the majority view of the APTEL that the standby facility was provided out of TPC's own generating capacity and that roughly 90% of the time the energy was actually drawn by BSES/REL from TPC, so there was no justification for TPC's claim to a 50:50 sharing of standby charges. The Court also rejected TPC's argument that it had not "implemented" the APTEL order, noting the order had never been stayed and had already been given effect through tariffs charged to consumers, and found no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution since the amount ordered was consistent with the parties' own prior agreement and principles of business equilibrium. Both cross-appeals were held to be without merit and dismissed, with amounts secured by TPC's bank guarantee and court deposit directed to be paid to Adani Electricity Mumbai Ltd. (substituted as the respondent).
In regulated-sector commercial disputes, an appellate tribunal's factual apportionment of costs (here, standby charges) will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court where it is backed by evidence of actual usage patterns and consistent with the parties' own prior commercial agreements, and a party cannot resist paying an unstayed tribunal order merely by claiming non-implementation when the benefit has already been passed on to consumers.
