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 moreEssar Steel India Limited (ESIL) was undergoing corporate insolvency resolution after defaulting on roughly Rs. 45,000 crores owed to financial creditors. ArcelorMittal India Private Limited (AMIPL) and Numetal Limited both submitted resolution (revival) plans to acquire ESIL, but the Resolution Professional found both ineligible under the newly-introduced Section 29A of the Code, which bars persons connected to existing non-performing-asset (NPA) accounts from bidding. AMIPL was linked, through its parent group's past shareholding and board control, to two other companies (Uttam Galva Steels and KSS Petron) that were themselves classified as NPAs, and it had divested those holdings only shortly before submitting its bid.
The Supreme Court examined in detail how "control," "connected person" and "related party" under Section 29A should be interpreted, and found that AMIPL's group had exercised real positive control (through shareholding, director-appointment rights, and affirmative voting rights) over both Uttam Galva and KSS Petron at the relevant time, and that the share sales divesting those holdings happened suspiciously close to the bid submission date, making them transactions designed to artificially dodge Section 29A's bar. On this basis, the Court held AMIPL (and similarly Numetal) ineligible under Section 29A(c). Rather than simply disqualifying both bidders and ending the process, the Court invoked its special constitutional power under Article 142, partly because this was the first time the law on Section 29A was being authoritatively settled, to give both bidders one final two-week window to pay off the NPAs of their related companies; if they did so, they could resubmit their resolution plans for the Committee of Creditors to choose from (alongside a plan from Vedanta), failing which Essar Steel would go into liquidation.
Section 29A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is designed to stop persons connected to existing bad-loan defaults from buying back distressed companies through the back door, and courts will look past last-minute share transfers or boardroom resignations that appear timed purely to dodge that bar: control is judged by substance, not by a bidder's paperwork on the eve of submitting its bid.
