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 moreThis lead case was part of a large batch (over 80 tagged civil appeals) arising out of Andhra Pradesh's post-liberalization restructuring of its electricity sector. After the Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (APERC) fixed wheeling charges and grid-support charges payable by captive power generators and other high-tension consumers using the state transmission network, several generators (including Rain Calcining Limited) challenged these charges, and the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) ruled partly in the generators' favour, including continuing certain wheeling-charge incentives granted by old government orders from 1997-98 on the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh (APTRANSCO) and APERC appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that APERC, as the statutory regulator under the AP Electricity Reforms Act, 1998, was competent to determine and levy both wheeling charges and grid support charges, and that the generators could not resist regulated tariff determinations on the basis of commercial arrangements predating the regulatory regime. On the promissory estoppel question, the Court held there was no unequivocal government promise and no material change in circumstances that would bind the State to continue the old subsidised wheeling-charge incentives, especially since any subsidy going forward had to be routed through the statutory mechanism in Section 65 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which the government had chosen not to invoke. Accordingly, the Court set aside the High Court's and APTEL's orders and restored APERC's original tariff orders, allowing all the appeals with no order as to costs.
Once a sector is brought under a statutory tariff regulator, pre-existing government concessions or incentives do not automatically survive as enforceable promises, unless a clear, continuing promise is shown and a fresh statutory subsidy mechanism is invoked, regulated consumers must pay tariffs as fixed by the regulator, not as previously informally promised.
