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 moreAntique Art Exports' factory suffered two fires in September and October 2013, and its insurer, United India Insurance, settled both fire claims (for about Rs. 2.81 crore and Rs. 2.20 crore) after the company accepted the computed amounts by email and signed "full and final settlement" discharge vouchers without any objection. About eleven weeks after accepting the settlement and the payment, the company suddenly claimed it had been coerced into signing the discharge vouchers due to financial distress, and sought arbitration under the insurance policy's arbitration clause. The Delhi High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, reasoning that the question of coercion should be examined by the arbitrator; the insurer appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that a mere bald allegation of fraud, coercion, or undue influence is not enough to justify referring a dispute to arbitration after a full and final settlement has been accepted: the claimant must produce at least prima facie evidence supporting such an allegation, which the respondent company had completely failed to do here. Applying established principles from earlier precedents, the Court found that the settlement had been voluntarily accepted without demur, with no protest raised until eleven weeks later, strongly indicating a genuine discharge of the contract by accord and satisfaction rather than coercion. The Court held the High Court had mechanically appointed an arbitrator without requiring any supportive evidence of a subsisting arbitral dispute, which was a manifest error, and set aside the High Court's order appointing the arbitrator.
Accepting an insurance settlement and signing a "full and final" discharge voucher without protest generally closes the matter; a party cannot revive a claim months later by merely alleging coercion or financial distress: courts require actual supporting evidence before allowing such a dispute to go to arbitration.
