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 moreA public open offer had been made to acquire shares of a target company, and a dispute arose between competing acquirers over the exact date on which the "public announcement" of the open offer was legally made: a group of private respondent companies said it was 25.09.2023, while the appellant, Digvijay Gaekwad (Danny Gaekwad), said it was 18.01.2025. The date mattered because it determined whether the appellant's competing bid, and his related application to SEBI, were filed within the time limits set by SEBI's Takeover Regulations. The private respondents, being non-banking financial companies, had needed RBI approval for their offer, which came only in December 2024, adding to the confusion over timing.
The Supreme Court declined to resolve the core legal question of which date counted as the "public announcement," noting that SEBI itself had not yet decided the issue and was better placed to do so. Instead, as an interim measure, the Court allowed the tendering period (due to close that very day) to continue for a few more days, conditioned on the appellant depositing Rs. 600 crores as security in line with the takeover regulations. The Court expressly stated this was a stop-gap arrangement in the peculiar facts of the case, not to be treated as a precedent, and left all rights and contentions of the parties open for SEBI and the courts below to decide on merits.
In fast-moving corporate takeover battles, courts will often preserve the status quo through interim conditions (like requiring a deposit) rather than deciding disputed regulatory questions themselves, leaving specialist regulators like SEBI to rule on technical compliance issues first.
