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 moreFollowing the 2009 Satyam Computer Services (SCSL) accounting fraud confession by its Chairman B. Ramalinga Raju, SEBI proceeded against several relatives/associates, including the appellant, who was the Chairman's "co-brother" (married to his wife's sister) and had been an executive director of SCSL until 2000 and a non-executive director until 2003. SEBI's Whole Time Member and, on appeal, the majority of the Securities Appellate Tribunal held him liable as an "insider" under the 1992 Regulations and ordered disgorgement of over Rs.136 crore, even though they also found he had no role in the actual fraud; a strong minority opinion at the Tribunal had disagreed and exonerated him.
The Supreme Court held that under Regulation 2(e)(i) of the 1992 Regulations, being a "connected person" (such as a director) is not by itself enough to make someone an "insider": the regulation's second requirement, that the person must be "reasonably expected" to have access to unpublished price-sensitive information (UPSI) by virtue of that connection, has to be independently satisfied, and such an expectation must rest on real foundational facts, not mere inference from family relationship or past directorship. The Court found the minority Tribunal view more legally and factually sound: the appellant's shareholding pattern (selling shares gradually over years rather than dumping them immediately), the SFIO's finding that the fraud was concealed even from the board of directors, and the absence of any genuine managerial control all showed he could not reasonably be expected to have known about the fraud. It therefore allowed his appeal and set aside the Tribunal's majority judgment and the disgorgement order; it followed the same reasoning to allow the connected appeals of his holding company, his late father's estate, and several other family members found similarly placed, while dismissing the appeals of two relatives (B. Suryanarayana Raju and SRSR Holdings) whose own complicity in the fraud was independently established by SFIO findings and a Special Court judgment.
Merely being a company director, or being related to a wrongdoer, does not automatically make a person liable for insider trading: regulators must show, with real facts, that the person was actually in a position to know the confidential information, not just assume it from family ties or a job title.
