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 moreWhen the IBC came into force on 1 December 2016, it did not initially say whether the general law of limitation (which normally bars stale claims after a fixed number of years) applied to applications filed under Sections 7 and 9 of the Code to start insolvency proceedings against a defaulting company. Parliament later inserted Section 238A in 2018 to expressly apply the Limitation Act, but the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) had held that the Limitation Act did not apply at all to such applications, only that very old claims might be scrutinised for "laches" (unreasonable delay). This appeal and several connected appeals asked the Supreme Court to settle whether the Limitation Act governed insolvency applications from the Code's very inception, not just from the date Section 238A was added.
The Court held that the Limitation Act, 1963 (specifically the three-year period under Article 137) applied to applications under Sections 7 and 9 of the Code right from the Code's commencement in December 2016, not only from June 2018 when Section 238A was formally inserted: Section 238A was clarificatory, not a new rule starting a fresh clock. It reasoned that the whole scheme of the Code, including provisions on debts that are "due," the operation of the Companies Act's limitation provisions over the NCLT/NCLAT, and the specific exclusion of limitation periods during a moratorium, only makes sense if limitation already applied; otherwise, long-dead, time-barred debts could be revived to trigger the drastic consequence of taking over a company's management. The Court also rejected arguments that insolvency proceedings should be treated differently from ordinary debt recovery just because the remedy is corporate insolvency rather than a money decree. Having settled this point of law, the Court sent all the connected appeals back to the NCLAT to decide each one afresh applying this ruling.
A creditor cannot use the insolvency process as a backdoor way to recover a debt that has already become legally stale (ordinarily three years from default); insolvency applications are subject to the same limitation rules as other legal claims, right from when the IBC itself began.
