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 company, Kothari Orient Finance Limited (KOFL), defaulted on a working capital loan from the bank's predecessor and agreed to sell its office property to the bank to settle the dues, handing over possession after receiving an advance payment. Before the sale deed could be executed, depositors who had been defaulted by KOFL filed company petitions seeking its winding up, and a Company Judge found KOFL's liabilities exceeded its assets, leading to admission of the winding-up petition and appointment of an administrator/liquidator. The bank's application to have the sale deed executed in its favour was dismissed by the Company Judge and later by the High Court's Division Bench on the ground that the sale agreement amounted to a "fraudulent preference" favouring the bank over other creditors, and the Division Bench also revived the winding-up proceedings that had been discharged in the interim. The bank challenged both rulings before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed both of the bank's petitions, upholding the High Court's outcome, though it corrected some of the High Court's reasoning along the way. It disagreed with the Division Bench's finding that the transaction was a "fraudulent preference" under Section 531 of the Companies Act, noting the Division Bench had wrongly ignored the six-month statutory time limit for such a finding and wrongly held an agreement to sell could not qualify as a "transfer" (the Court clarified Section 531 covers any act relating to property, not just formal transfers). However, the Court held the bank's application still failed independently because KOFL's sale had not complied with Section 293(1) of the Companies Act (requiring board/shareholder approval for disposal of substantially the whole undertaking), and it upheld reviving the winding-up proceedings given the unresolved status of the company's affairs. The Court clarified that even if the Section 293 defect were later cured, any future sale deed execution would remain subject to the outcome of the winding-up proceedings.
A company cannot dispose of its substantial assets through a private sale agreement without complying with statutory corporate-approval requirements, and such a sale cannot be enforced against the backdrop of unresolved winding-up proceedings: a buyer's claim to a company's property must yield to the collective interests of all creditors once insolvency proceedings are underway.
