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 hotel company, Polo Hotels Ltd., had a state industrial corporation as a shareholder that was owed a buy-back of its shares. The original promoter, Garg, defaulted, and in March-April 1999 A.R. Dahiya agreed to buy Garg's 28.09% stake and to take over the buy-back obligation, paying in post-dated cheques. Dahiya then made a public announcement to other shareholders without disclosing the buy-back arrangement, and the cheques were later dishonoured. SEBI penalised him, and the Securities Appellate Tribunal upheld the order.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld SEBI's order of 1 August 2003. It held that the post-dated cheques were a promise to pay, and that the promise amounted to a sale of shares, so the buy-back was an acquisition under the Regulations. The Court read "acquisition" in light of the Regulations' purpose of protecting shareholders, and held that an acquisition occurs once an acquirer agrees to acquire shares, even if the transfer is completed later. The later dishonour of the cheques did not change this, and the Court noted that the 2011 Regulations later defined "acquisition" to remove any doubt.
An agreement to buy shares counts as an acquisition from the moment it is agreed, not when the money finally clears. Paying with post-dated cheques does not avoid disclosure duties under takeover rules, and a bounced cheque does not undo the obligation.
