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 was appointed as a clearing and forwarding agent for Rhone Poulenc India Ltd. (RPIL) under a 1997 agreement that contained an arbitration clause. When RPIL merged into the respondent company, Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. (NPIL), the agency agreement was terminated, leading to litigation that ended in a 2001 compromise decree under which the appellant was instead appointed as a "stockist" (not clearing/forwarding agent) for two cities, in exchange for a payment and handing over of all stock and documents. When the respondent allegedly failed to honour the new compromise arrangement, the appellant filed a fresh money suit claiming Rs. 20 crore in damages, but the respondent sought to force the dispute into arbitration under the 1997 agreement's arbitration clause, and the High Court agreed.
The Supreme Court held that the 2001 compromise had created an entirely new and different arrangement (stockist, not clearing/forwarding agent) that superseded the original 1997 agreement, and since the compromise deed itself contained no arbitration clause, the arbitration clause from the old, now-replaced agreement could not be stretched to cover disputes arising from the new compromise arrangement. The Court also noted that the respondent itself had separately alleged that the compromise decree was obtained by fraud and inducement, and following its earlier ruling in A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam, held that serious, complex fraud allegations of this kind must be examined by a civil court through full evidence, not shunted off to arbitration. It therefore set aside the High Court's order referring the parties to arbitration and restored the money suit to the trial court to proceed on its merits.
An arbitration clause in an original contract does not automatically carry over to a later compromise or settlement that replaces that contract with new terms; and where one side itself alleges that the settlement was obtained by fraud, courts generally decide such disputes themselves rather than sending them to arbitration.
