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 petitioner (legal successor to the original contractor on a Mumbai city-tunnel sewage rehabilitation works contract) invoked the arbitration clause in its contract with the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai after disputes arose, and nominated its own arbitrator. When the Corporation did not respond within the agreed 30 days, the petitioner approached the International Centre for Alternative Dispute Resolution (ICADR), which asked the Corporation to pick an arbitrator from a panel of three names it supplied. Instead, the Corporation appointed a retired judge of its own choosing, outside that panel, prompting the petitioner to move the Supreme Court under Section 11(6) for appointment of an arbitrator.
The Court held that the Corporation's appointment of its arbitrator was "non-est" (legally a nullity) because it bypassed the agreed procedure requiring selection from the ICADR-supplied panel, rather than any person of the Corporation's choice. The Court distinguished this case from precedents (Antrix, Pricol) where parties had used an alternative agreed procedure or had already submitted to the arbitrator's jurisdiction: neither applied here. Since the appointment did not satisfy the agreed procedure, it did not bar the Court's Section 11(6) jurisdiction, and a defective appointment made before the court application could not be treated as a fait accompli.
When a contract specifies a particular procedure for appointing an arbitrator (such as choosing from a panel supplied by a nominated body), a party cannot sidestep that procedure and appoint someone of its own choosing, doing so renders the appointment invalid and the matter can still be taken to court.
