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 appellant's appeal before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) was dismissed as not maintainable because it was filed 9 days after both the initial 45-day limitation period and the further 45-day condonable "grace period" under Section 421(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 had expired. The appellant argued before the Supreme Court that Section 433 of the Act, which generally applies the Limitation Act, 1963 to NCLAT proceedings, should allow Section 5 of the Limitation Act to further condone the delay.
The Supreme Court held that Section 421(3)'s proviso, by expressly capping the condonable period at a further 45 days (on top of the initial 45), uses mandatory, peremptory language that leaves no room for the general condonation power under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to operate beyond that cap: the phrase "so far as may be" in Section 433 only applies the Limitation Act to the extent possible, and here the specific statutory scheme makes it impossible. The Court distinguished precedents the appellant relied on (including Mangu Ram and the reasoning in Union of India v. Popular Construction Co.) on the basis that those involved limitation provisions with no inbuilt second condonable period, unlike Section 421(3)'s own built-in 45-day grace period which functions as its own complete code. Finding the proviso's "not exceeding forty-five days" language functionally equivalent to the "but not thereafter" language that bars delay condonation elsewhere, the Court saw no reason to interfere with the NCLAT's order and dismissed the appeal.
When a specific law sets its own fixed outer limit for filing an appeal (an initial period plus one capped grace period for sufficient cause), courts cannot use the general condonation power under the Limitation Act to extend that outer limit further: strict corporate-law deadlines like the one for NCLAT appeals must be respected to the day.
