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 moreM/s Vijay Nirman Company had a sub-contract dispute with M/s Ksheerabad Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (KCPL) over highway construction work, which went to arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal passed an award in January 2017 allowing some of Vijay Nirman's claims but rejecting several large cross-claims made by KCPL. While KCPL's challenge to that award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act was still pending in court, Vijay Nirman issued a demand notice and then filed an insolvency petition under Section 9 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against KCPL, treating the arbitral award as an admitted "operational debt." Both the National Company Law Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal had accepted this and admitted the insolvency petition.
The Supreme Court held that an operational debt based on an arbitral award cannot be enforced through the insolvency process while a Section 34 petition challenging that award is genuinely pending, because the challenge itself keeps the underlying dispute alive and "pre-existing." Relying on its earlier ruling in Mobilox Innovations vs. Kirusa Software, the Court reiterated that the Insolvency Code is meant for clear, undisputed debts, not as a tool to pressure a party that still has a live, substantial dispute: here, cross-claims worth far more than the awarded sum were still being litigated. The Appellate Tribunal had wrongly treated Section 238 of the Code (its overriding clause) as relevant and wrongly treated the arbitral award as conclusively "proving" the debt. The Court therefore set aside the orders admitting the insolvency petition and allowed the appeals, also discharging the bank guarantees furnished earlier.
A company cannot use the insolvency process as a shortcut to recover money awarded in arbitration if that award is still being contested in court: insolvency proceedings require a genuinely undisputed debt, not one still caught up in a live legal fight.
