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 moreUnion of India (North Central Railway) had contracted L&T in 2011 to modernise the Jhansi railway workshop, a project that ran 40 months late. Disputes over payments and delay led to arbitration, and in 2018 a three-member Arbitral Tribunal awarded L&T roughly Rs. 5.53 crore, including pre-award (pendente lite) interest on some claims and 12% post-award interest. Both the Commercial Court, Jhansi and the Allahabad High Court upheld this award, prompting the Union of India to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Arbitral Tribunal had wrongly awarded pre-award/pendente lite interest on Claim Nos. 1, 3 and 6, because the contract's General Conditions (Clauses 16(3) and 64(5)) expressly barred such interest, and this error fell within the limited grounds for interference under Sections 34 and 37. However, the Court held the tribunal was justified in awarding post-award interest since the contract did not exclude it and Section 31(7)(b) of the Act permits it by default. Relying on Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies (2025) 7 SCC 1, the Court held it has the power to modify (not just set aside) an unreasoned post-award interest rate, and reduced the rate from 12% to 8% per annum as excessive and unjustified on the record. The appeal was accordingly partly allowed.
Courts can modify specific components of an arbitral award, such as an unjustified interest rate, rather than being forced to strike down the whole award; and a contractual bar on pre-award interest does not automatically extend to bar post-award interest, since the two operate under different legal provisions.
