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 awarded two construction contracts to Varindera Constructions Ltd. for residential accommodation at Hissar. After completion of the work, the contractor raised additional claims including one for escalation in minimum wages, which the Union rejected, leading to arbitration. The Arbitrator partly allowed the wage-escalation claim by reading Clause 19 (which deals with wages) together with Clause 25 (which deals with octroi, sales tax and other duties) of the contract, and the Delhi High Court upheld this interpretation, prompting the Union's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the Arbitrator and the High Court erred by interpreting Clause 19 (wages) in light of Clause 25 (duties/taxes), since the two clauses dealt with entirely separate subject matters and Clause 19 contained no language making it "subject to" Clause 25. The Court reasoned that contractual terms must be construed according to the parties' actual intention and plain language, not a hypothetical or strained reading that conflates unrelated clauses, and that nothing in the contract specifically allowed reimbursement for wage escalation. Finding this interpretation contrary to settled principles of contract construction, the Court allowed the Union's appeals and set aside both the High Court's judgment and the Arbitrator's award on this claim, with parties to bear their own costs.
When interpreting a contract, courts and arbitrators must read each clause according to its own specific subject matter and the parties' actual intent, and cannot import entitlements from one clause into an unrelated clause simply because doing so might benefit one party.
