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 moreA property dispute traced back to a 2007 sale agreement between the appellant's late paternal uncle and Respondent No. 1. After the uncle's death, Respondent No. 1 initiated arbitration against another person alleged to be the legal representative, and an arbitral award was passed in 2011 directing execution of the sale deed. The appellant, claiming he was not informed of the arbitration until 2012 and that he was the real legal heir, challenged the award before the Madras High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution/Section 115 CPC instead of under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The High Court dismissed his challenge, holding that a legal representative's remedy lies only under the Arbitration Act.
The Supreme Court framed the central question as whether legal heirs aggrieved by an arbitral award must proceed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act or can invoke Article 227/Section 115 CPC. Relying on Section 40 of the Arbitration Act (which provides that an arbitration agreement is not discharged by a party's death and remains enforceable by/against legal representatives) and its own prior rulings, the Court held that legal representatives "step into the shoes" of the deceased party for all purposes of the Act, including the right to challenge an award under Section 34. Denying legal representatives this specific statutory remedy while still holding them bound by the award would defeat the self-contained, complete-code character of the Arbitration Act. The Court also noted the appellant's inconsistent stand, claiming to be the sole legal heir while simultaneously denying he represented the deceased's estate, and upheld the High Court's order, dismissing the appeal.
When a party to an arbitration agreement or award dies, their legal heirs step into their shoes and must challenge an unfavourable arbitral award through the Arbitration Act's own remedy (Section 34), not through a general supervisory/revisional route like Article 227 or Section 115 CPC. The Court permitted the appellant to now file under Section 34, with limitation running from the date of this judgment.
