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 moreOn 12 February 2018, the Reserve Bank of India issued a circular directing banks to treat loan accounts above a threshold as in "default" and to initiate a time-bound resolution process, failing which lenders were required to file insolvency proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Numerous corporate borrowers and lenders across the country challenged this circular, and all the related writ petitions and transfer petitions were brought together before the Supreme Court as a single batch (with Dharani Sugars' transferred case treated as the lead matter). The core challenge was that the RBI lacked the statutory power to issue such a blanket, sector-wide directive forcing insolvency action.
The Court held that the RBI's general regulatory powers under Sections 35A and 35AB of the Banking Regulation Act could not be used to issue the circular, because Section 35AA, a specific provision inserted by Parliament to empower the RBI to direct banks to initiate insolvency proceedings, required prior authorisation from the Central Government for each specific default, which had not been obtained. The Court also found the circular failed to show the regard required by Section 45L(3) to the varying conditions and statutory responsibilities of the different categories of institutions it swept in. Because the circular exceeded the RBI's statutory authority, it was declared wholly ultra vires and of no legal effect, and all insolvency proceedings triggered solely because of the circular were declared non-est (void from inception).
Even a powerful regulator like the RBI must act strictly within the specific statutory power Parliament has given it; a general rule-making power cannot be stretched to do what only a more specific, conditions-attached provision authorises, and action taken beyond that authority is void, not merely irregular.
