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 moreDr. Anil Khandelwal (then Chairman and Managing Director of Bank of Baroda, earlier Vijaya Bank) and two bank officers were prosecuted for defamation after a SARFAESI possession notice against a defaulting firm, Phoenix India, mistakenly stated the outstanding dues as about Rs. 56 crore instead of the correct roughly Rs. 5.6 crore due to a clerical error. The Bank promptly issued a clarification and apology, but Phoenix India filed a criminal complaint under IPC Sections 499-501, and a magistrate issued process against the bank officers. The Bombay High Court declined to quash the proceedings.
The Supreme Court held that the Bank itself, on whose behalf the notice was issued, had never been made an accused, and settled law (Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels) holds that officers cannot be prosecuted on a theory of vicarious liability unless the company/bank is also arraigned and a specific statute creates such liability. The IPC, unlike special statutes such as the Negotiable Instruments Act, has no vicarious liability provision. The Court also found the possession notice was issued bona fide under SARFAESI in the discharge of statutory duty, with the error genuinely clerical and swiftly corrected, attracting the good-faith immunity under Section 32 of the SARFAESI Act. It quashed the complaint and, on identical facts, quashed the connected proceedings against the third officer as well.
Bank or company officers cannot be criminally prosecuted merely because of their designation, without the company itself being made an accused and a specific statutory provision fixing personal liability, and genuine clerical errors made in good faith while discharging statutory duties do not amount to defamation.
