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 appellant, owner of a 15.53-acre plot of land, was said by the respondents to have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in 2013 under which the respondents would help resolve the appellant's land disputes in exchange for 50% of the land. The appellant denied ever signing the MoU, calling it forged. When a dispute arose, the respondents asked the High Court to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, and the High Court did so, directing the arbitrator himself to decide whether the MoU was even genuine.
The Supreme Court held that this was legally wrong: under settled Constitution Bench law (SBP & Co. v. Patel Engg. Ltd. and later decisions), whether a valid arbitration agreement exists at all is a threshold jurisdictional question that the High Court (or its designate) must decide itself before appointing an arbitrator: it cannot hand that question off to the arbitrator, especially where forgery is alleged. Since the appellant had consistently and timely denied signing the MoU, the High Court should have resolved that genuineness question first. The Court set aside the High Court's order and sent the matter back to the High Court's designate judge to decide the genuineness and validity of the MoU on the merits, with the question of appointing an arbitrator to follow only once that threshold issue is resolved.
When one party denies ever signing an agreement containing an arbitration clause, a court asked to appoint an arbitrator must first decide for itself whether a valid agreement exists: it cannot outsource that foundational question to the very arbitrator it is being asked to appoint.
