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 moreIndian Railways (Union of India) had awarded a repair works contract to respondent Susaka Pvt. Ltd. in 1994; disputes over payment went to arbitration, and a three-member Arbitral Tribunal awarded the respondent roughly Rs. 27.6 lakh including interest on various claims. A single judge of the Bombay High Court, hearing Railways' challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, made only minor modifications to the interest awarded on two specific claims and otherwise upheld the award; the respondent appealed that limited modification, and Railways did not cross-appeal the parts it had lost. The Division Bench then allowed the respondent's appeal and restored the award in full.
Before the Supreme Court, Railways argued for the first time that a contract clause (13(3) of the General Conditions of Contract) barred any interest from being awarded at all. The Court rejected this, holding that having never raised this argument before the Arbitral Tribunal, the Single Judge, or the Division Bench, and having actually consented earlier to let the Tribunal decide interest, Railways had waived the point and could not raise it for the first time in the Supreme Court. The Court also noted that because Railways had never cross-appealed the Single Judge's substantial dismissal of its Section 34 objections, that part of the ruling had already become final independently. The Court further held, on the merits, that awarding interest on arbitrable claims is not inherently illegal, and invoked an old judicial observation that the State should deal with citizens honestly rather than relying on unraised technical pleas. The appeal was dismissed.
A legal objection not raised at the earliest available stage, before the arbitrator, then before each reviewing court, generally cannot be raised for the first time in the Supreme Court; parties (including government bodies) must take their objections when they have the chance, or risk losing them through waiver.
