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 moreThe State of Bihar objected to a court-appointed arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the (Central) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arguing that the Bihar Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal Act, 2008 (a State law creating its own arbitration tribunal) excluded the Central Act for government works contracts. The contractors, however, pointed out that their 2012 works agreement with the State itself expressly provided that arbitration would be conducted under the Central Act. The dispute reached the Supreme Court through two connected appeals arising from Bihar High Court orders upholding the arbitrator's appointment under the Central Act.
The Supreme Court held that, reading Sections 8, 9 and 22 of the Bihar State Act together, the State Act only applies to works contracts by default when the contract itself is silent on which law governs arbitration; where, as here, the contract expressly agreed to apply the Central Act, that agreement prevails and the State Act has no application. On that basis it dismissed the State's appeals, while leaving it open to the State to approach the High Court separately if it had genuine, specific objections to the neutrality of the appointed arbitrator. Going further, the Court also examined a separate constitutional challenge to Section 4(3)(b) of the State Act, which let the Government terminate the Arbitration Tribunal's Chairman and members "at pleasure" (i.e., at will) despite a fixed three-year tenure under Section 4(1). It held this at-will termination power was manifestly arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution, since it let a party to a dispute (the Government) threaten the independence of the very tribunal members deciding that dispute, and accordingly declared Section 4(3)(b) unconstitutional.
A specific arbitration clause freely agreed to in a contract overrides a general State law on arbitration procedure, and any law allowing a government to terminate adjudicators "at pleasure" while they decide disputes involving that same government is constitutionally invalid as a threat to judicial independence.
