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 was a Public Interest Litigation filed under Article 32 challenging the constitutional validity of Section 21A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, which bars courts from reopening a loan transaction between a bank and its borrower merely on the ground that the interest rate charged was excessive (overriding the protection otherwise available under the Usurious Loans Act, 1918, and similar state debt-relief laws). The petitioners, relying on a Parliamentary Standing Committee report, argued that this provision left farmers unprotected against exploitative interest rates and effectively nullified state laws meant to grant relief from agricultural indebtedness, and should be struck down at least as applied to rural/agricultural debtors.
The Supreme Court held that Section 21A falls, in its "pith and substance" (its true essential character), within Parliament's power over "banking" under Entry 45 of List I (the Union List) of the Constitution, and is therefore a valid law. The Court acknowledged that the provision does incidentally encroach upon Entry 30 of List II (the State List), which empowers states to legislate on relief of agricultural indebtedness, but held that such incidental encroachment does not make a law invalid under the settled "pith and substance" doctrine. However, rather than simply upholding the law without qualification, the Court carved out a specific exception: in any state that has its own State Debt Relief Act covering debts owed to banks, Section 21A will not override that state law and courts there may still scrutinise interest rates on loans covered by the state Act; only in states without such a law, or where it does not cover the relevant banks, does Section 21A's bar on judicial scrutiny of interest rates continue to apply in full.
A central banking law can validly limit courts' power to reopen loan transactions for "excessive" interest, but this protection for banks is not absolute: if a state has its own specific law granting relief to agricultural borrowers from indebtedness to banks, that state law will prevail over the central provision within that state, so a farmer or borrower facing high interest should check whether their state has such a debt-relief law before assuming no recourse exists.
