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 respondent-borrower had mortgaged seven immovable properties to obtain credit from SBI, then defaulted, leading its account to be classified as a non-performing asset and triggering recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act. The borrower later sought a one-time settlement (OTS), which the bank initially processed via a compromise sanction letter, but the bank subsequently rejected the borrower's OTS application under its OTS 2020 Scheme. The borrower successfully challenged the rejection before a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, and a Division Bench dismissed the bank's intra-court appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the borrower's own conduct disabled it from receiving a fair consideration of its OTS application: a relevant factor bearing on the rejection had not been properly weighed by the High Court. It found the cause of justice would not be served by letting the High Court's judgment stand, since the reasoning kept out a factor central to why the bank rejected the settlement request. The Court set aside both the Division Bench's and the Single Judge's judgments, ruled in the bank's favour, allowed the bank to proceed with enforcing its security interest, but also gave the borrower a fresh opportunity to propose a new settlement (outside the OTS 2020 Scheme) which the bank may consider on its own terms.
A borrower seeking a one-time settlement of bank dues must ensure its own conduct does not undermine the fairness of that request. Courts will scrutinise whether all relevant factors were genuinely considered, and a settlement rejection will not automatically be overturned just because the borrower disagrees with the outcome.
