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 case concerned procurement of submarine batteries for the Indian Navy, a "mission critical" defence item that under government policy could only be sourced from vendors registered after a multi-year development and testing process supervised by the Defence Ministry's quality-assurance wing (DGQA). The respondent company wanted to be treated as an alternative supplier and sought a direction for open tenders, and the Delhi High Court had ruled in its favour, directing the Union of India to advertise and invite open tenders for the batteries. The Union of India appealed, arguing that critical defence spares cannot be procured through open tender like ordinary commercial items.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had failed to appreciate the government's settled two-track procurement policy: common-use items go through open tender, while mission-critical strategic items like submarine batteries can only be sourced from vendors developed and registered through the DGQA's rigorous, multi-year supervised process. Since the respondent had not been registered through that process and the policy itself had never been challenged in the writ petition, the High Court had no basis to direct an open advertisement/tender for submarine batteries. The Court noted that lives of defence personnel and the safety of submarines could not be risked merely because a private firm claimed capability without completing the mandated development and testing process. The impugned High Court order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.
Courts will generally defer to government policy choices on how to procure specialised, safety-critical defence equipment, and will not force open tendering where the government has a reasoned, unchallenged policy requiring supervised development and certification of suppliers first.
