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 Union of India had rescinded a construction contract awarded to the respondent for a tsunami-reconstruction housing project in the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, citing poor performance; the dispute went to arbitration, where the Arbitrator ruled the rescission illegal and ordered payment to the respondent. When the Union tried to challenge the award under Section 34 before the District Court and then, after a jurisdiction objection, before the Calcutta High Court, a Single Judge condoned the Union's delay in filing that challenge. The respondent then filed an intra-court Letters Patent Appeal against that delay-condonation order, and a Division Bench of the High Court allowed it, reversing the Single Judge.
The Supreme Court held that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a self-contained code, and relying on its own earlier ruling in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd., found that an order condoning delay under Section 34(3) is not independently appealable under Section 37 of the Act, and a Letters Patent Appeal against it is therefore not maintainable. The Division Bench had wrongly treated the Single Judge's order as being "without jurisdiction" merely because it disagreed with it on merits: that disagreement, if any, should have been raised through a proper remedy (e.g., special leave to the Supreme Court), not an LPA. The Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment, but gave the respondent liberty to challenge the Single Judge's delay-condonation order on its merits, keeping all contentions open, and also gave directions about an escrow deposit of Rs. 5 crore made earlier in the proceedings.
Where a special statute like the Arbitration Act creates its own complete scheme of appeals, parties cannot bypass that scheme by using a general remedy like a Letters Patent Appeal, even if they believe the lower court's order was wrong: the right route matters as much as having a grievance.
