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 moreArc-furnace steel manufacturers in Punjab, including the appellant Waryam Steel Castings, drew heavy electrical loads through an 11 KV supply line instead of switching to the mandated 66 KV line, as required for large industrial consumers. Although a 1999 government circular had briefly exempted pre-1995 units from the resulting 17.5% surcharge, subsequent tariff orders issued by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission after the Electricity Act, 2003 came into force consistently reaffirmed the surcharge (later reduced to 7-10%) without renewing that exemption. The industries' challenges to both the surcharge itself and its reduced rate were rejected by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity and by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, leading to these appeals.
The Supreme Court held that the levy of surcharge had already been upheld in an earlier round of litigation (dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 10889 of 2010), and every tariff order since 2004-05 had consistently reaffirmed the need for the surcharge to offset the extra transmission and line losses caused by letting high-demand industries draw power at a lower voltage than required. The 1999 circular's one-time concession could not survive the new statutory tariff-fixing regime introduced by the Electricity Act, 2003, since it was never carried forward into any tariff order under the new Act. On the separate question of the surcharge rate, the Court found that the Regulatory Commission had reasonably calculated the reduced 7%/10% rates by factoring in the cost of conversion to 66 KV plus a deterrent element, and declined to second-guess this expert tariff-fixing exercise. Both sets of appeals were dismissed, with each side bearing its own costs.
Courts give wide deference to specialised regulatory bodies on technical tariff and surcharge calculations, intervening only if the process was illegal, arbitrary, or outside the regulator's statutory power: a past administrative concession does not automatically survive a new statutory regime unless it is expressly renewed under that new law.
