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 A Estates was the original developer for the redevelopment of a housing society's building in Mumbai but fell into insolvency, and Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) proceedings began against it in December 2022, triggering an automatic moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code that freezes actions against the insolvent company. Despite this, the housing society, frustrated by years of delay, went to the Bombay High Court seeking to replace A A Estates with a new developer for the stalled project. The High Court ruled in the society's favour, and A A Estates (through its Resolution Professional) appealed, arguing the High Court's order violated the statutory moratorium.
The Supreme Court dismissed the developer's appeal and upheld the High Court's order allowing the society to proceed with a new developer. While acknowledging the moratorium argument, the Court took a purposive, welfare-oriented view, holding that the insolvency shield cannot be used to indefinitely stall a redevelopment project and thereby prolong the hardship of residents who have already waited years in unsafe or temporary housing. The Court emphasized that redevelopment of housing societies has a social welfare character, not just a commercial one, and that the constitutional promise of dignified living under Articles 19(1)(e) and 21 cannot be defeated by using the IBC as a shield for non-performance. It directed compliance with the High Court's directions within two months, while leaving A A Estates free to separately pursue recovery of the roughly ₹24 crore it claimed to have already spent on the project.
The protective moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is meant to give a genuinely viable company breathing room to recover. It cannot be stretched to indefinitely block ordinary citizens, such as housing society residents, from moving on with a stalled redevelopment when the original developer has failed to perform.
