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 moreDeve Sugars Ltd. was ordered to be wound up by the Madras High Court, and an Official Liquidator took possession of its Karnataka factory assets in 1999. Separately, the State Bank of Mysore pursued recovery of its dues before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Bangalore, and ultimately had the company's assets auctioned by the DRT's Recovery Officer in 2005, where Anita International was the highest bidder (Rs. 10.25 crores). The workers' union and the Official Liquidator objected that this sale violated an earlier Madras High Court order of 10.3.2000, which had permitted the Bank to proceed before the DRT only on the condition that the Official Liquidator be impleaded and no coercive steps be taken against the company's assets.
The Supreme Court held that the Company Court's order of 10.3.2000 was validly passed within its jurisdiction and was binding, not merely an order "in personam", on all parties, including the auction purchaser Anita International, since it governed the manner in which the DRT recovery proceedings could proceed. Because the 2005 auction and its confirmation were conducted in violation of that binding order (no leave was properly obtained and the Official Liquidator's rights were bypassed), the sale was rightly set aside by the High Court. The Court also rejected Anita International's equity-based argument, noting there was effectively only one genuine bidder (the other being a sister company), and rejected the argument that the only remedy lay under Section 30 of the RDB Act. The appeals of Anita International were dismissed, affirming the High Court's order and confirming the setting aside of the 2005 sale and its confirmation.
An order passed by a competent court, even one granting conditional leave to another forum to proceed, remains binding on all persons claiming through any later proceedings conducted in violation of it, until it is formally set aside; a sale or auction conducted in defiance of such a standing court order cannot be protected merely because the purchaser paid in good faith or no immediate objection was raised within the limitation period.
