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 moreThe respondent company had been declared a sick industrial unit years earlier, and winding-up proceedings based on the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction's opinion were pending before the Rajasthan High Court. Separately, a financial creditor filed an application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), which admitted it and began insolvency proceedings. The High Court then held that the NCLT's order was without jurisdiction and refused to transfer the winding-up case to the NCLT, prompting an employees' union to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Court held that under Rule 5(2) of the Companies (Transfer of Pending Proceedings) Rules, 2016, winding-up cases that originated from a BIFR opinion under the Sick Industrial Companies Act continue with the High Court rather than automatically transferring to the NCLT, so the High Court's refusal to transfer that specific proceeding was, on this narrow point, not wrong (though it had cited the wrong Rule). However, the Court held that a creditor's independent application under Section 7 of the Insolvency Code is a completely separate proceeding, and Section 238 of the Code (which overrides inconsistent provisions in other laws) meant the NCLT was correct to admit it regardless of the pending High Court winding-up case. The Court therefore set aside the High Court's order quashing the NCLT's admission, held that the insolvency proceedings before the NCLT must continue from where they left off, and directed that the High Court's company petition and connected writ petitions be disposed of since the Code proceedings must now run their full course. The appeal was allowed.
Once a financial creditor's insolvency application is validly admitted by the NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, it overrides and effectively supersedes a parallel winding-up case pending in a High Court over the same company: the Code's insolvency process takes precedence and must be allowed to run its course.
