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 moreWBSEDCL had a long-term power purchase arrangement under which Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Ltd. (APNRL) was to supply 100 MW of electricity generated using coal from its own captive coal block at Ganeshpur, Jharkhand. When the Supreme Court's 2014 judgment in Manohar Lal Sharma cancelled coal block allocations nationwide (including Ganeshpur) and a new law changed how coal blocks were allocated, APNRL was forced to buy costlier coal from the open market and sought compensation from WBSEDCL under the "Change in Law" clause of their agreement. The regulatory commission (CERC) and the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) gave partly conflicting rulings on how much compensation, and for what period, APNRL was entitled to, leading both sides to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that although the written agreement did not explicitly name Ganeshpur as the captive coal source, surrounding documents (meeting minutes and correspondence) made clear that both parties always understood Ganeshpur to be that source, and it is legally permissible to look at such surrounding circumstances to clarify an ambiguous contract term. It agreed that the cancellation of the coal block by the Court's 2014 ruling and the subsequent new coal allocation law qualified as a "Change in Law" event entitling APNRL to compensation from 25.08.2014 onward, since a separate contractual clause (indemnifying WBSEDCL against ordinary cost escalation) applied to a different situation and did not bar this claim. However, the Court held APTEL was wrong to also award APNRL compensation for coal shortfalls before the 2014 cancellation, since before that date any delay in operationalizing the coal block was a normal commercial risk already covered by the indemnity clause, not a Change in Law event. The appeals were therefore partly allowed: compensation for the pre-2014 shortfall period was disallowed, while the post-2014 Change in Law compensation with carrying costs was upheld.
In interpreting a written commercial contract, courts may look at prior negotiations, meeting minutes, and subsequent correspondence to clarify ambiguous terms, but must still carefully distinguish between ordinary commercial risks a party agreed to bear and genuine "change in law" events caused by later legal or judicial developments, only the latter typically justifies extra compensation.
