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 moreJSW Hydro Energy (respondent) built and ran a 1045 MW hydroelectric project in Himachal Pradesh under an Implementation Agreement with the state government, obligating it to supply escalating percentages of free power (12% rising to 18%) to the state. When the higher 18% obligation was due to kick in, the company went to the Himachal Pradesh High Court arguing that CERC's 2019 Tariff Regulations capped free power supply at 13%, and that this regulatory cap overrode the higher contractual figure in the Implementation Agreement. The High Court agreed and modified the Agreement accordingly, prompting the State to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the CERC Regulations' cap (Note 3 of Regulation 55) does not prohibit a generator from supplying free power beyond 13%. It only governs how tariff is calculated and passed through, not a ceiling on the parties' independent contractual obligations. Consequently, the company's Implementation Agreement obligation to supply up to 18% free power remained valid and was not overridden by the Regulations; only 13% would be treated as a tariff pass-through, with the remainder governed purely by contract. The Court also held that since CERC is a specialised expert regulator with exclusive jurisdiction over interpreting its own tariff regulations, and the company had not sought relief against the State from CERC on this specific point (its CERC petition concerned different agreements), the writ petition before the High Court seeking to modify the Implementation Agreement was not maintainable. The appeal was allowed and the High Court's judgment set aside.
A sector regulator's technical regulations (like CERC's tariff rules) govern rate calculation, not necessarily every underlying commercial obligation: parties cannot use a regulatory ceiling to escape a separately agreed, more onerous contractual commitment; and disputes squarely within a specialised regulator's domain should ordinarily be raised before that regulator, not brought directly as a writ petition to a High Court.
