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 moreUrban Infrastructure Real Estate Fund (UIREF), a Mauritius-based private equity fund, had invested in Neelkanth Realty Private Limited under a 2008 Share Subscription Agreement and Shareholders Agreement to develop a large township project spanning about 700 acres near Pune. A dispute arose and went to arbitration, where an Arbitral Tribunal passed an interim award in 2019 deciding a preliminary issue of limitation "on demurrer" (i.e., without taking evidence, assuming the opposing party's factual case to be true) and treating that finding as final. The Bombay High Court, both at the Single Judge and Division Bench level, held that this method of deciding limitation could not foreclose the issue and needed to be examined properly with evidence. UIREF challenged this before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed UIREF's petitions and upheld the High Court's view. It undertook a detailed examination of what "demurrer" means in Indian and comparative (US) jurisprudence, and held that an arbitral tribunal cannot use party autonomy to adopt a procedure that effectively bypasses Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Deciding a limitation question finally on mere demurrer, without permitting evidence, and then treating it as conclusively "foreclosed," offended basic principles of justice. The Court held this part of the interim award warranted interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, while clarifying that the remainder of the award would stay intact, and sent the limitation issue back for proper examination with evidence.
Parties cannot use arbitration agreements or tribunal procedure to shortcut mandatory limitation-law safeguards: a limitation finding made without any evidence, on assumed facts alone, cannot be treated as final and unchallengeable, and courts will step in to ensure it is properly tested.
