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 moreThis appeal (C.A. No. 5677 of 2017) was the lead matter in a shared judgment that also finally decided three connected SEBI appeals (C.A. Nos. 10410-10412 of 2017); the Court confirmed this appeal's own number and parties are expressly captioned and disposed of in the judgment. SEBI had found that Dushyant Dalal and his wife manipulated retail investor share allotments in multiple IPOs and ordered them in 2009 to disgorge about Rs. 4.05 crore in unlawful gains plus a one-time interest figure, failing which they would be barred from the securities market for seven years. They did not pay within the deadline, were accordingly debarred, and eventually paid the full Rs. 6 crore years later, but SEBI then sought additional interest for the delay, which the Securities Appellate Tribunal upheld.
The Supreme Court compared the wording of the 2009 order to other SEBI orders passed around the same time, some of which expressly said unpaid amounts would attract interest "till actual payment is made." The 2009 order in this case contained no such words: it only provided that non-payment within 45 days would trigger market debarment. The Court held that since the order already specified a severe alternative consequence (the debarment, which the appellants had, in fact, suffered) for non-payment, no further interest could be read into it after the fact. It allowed this appeal and set aside the Tribunal's order insofar as it imposed additional interest.
Whether interest keeps running on an unpaid SEBI penalty or disgorgement order depends strictly on what that specific order actually says: regulators must spell out any ongoing-interest consequence explicitly in the order itself, as courts will not add it in later merely because other, similar orders included such language.
