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 moreTwo companies, Kamineni Steel & Power India Pvt. Ltd. and Innoventive Industries Ltd., went through the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. In both cases, the Committee of Creditors (CoC) did not approve the proposed resolution plans by the legally required 75% voting share, so the National Company Law Tribunal and then the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) directed that the companies be put into liquidation. The promoters/resolution applicants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CoC's rejection was not properly reasoned and that the NCLAT should have let them revise their plans or invoked Article 142 to relax the voting threshold since they later came close to the amended lower threshold of 66%.
The Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals, holding that the "commercial wisdom" of the Committee of Creditors in approving or rejecting a resolution plan is not subject to judicial review on merits, and the CoC is not required to record detailed reasons for its commercial/business decision under Section 30 of the Code. Since the plans failed to secure the then-applicable 75% voting threshold within the statutory 270-day period, liquidation was the only lawful consequence under Section 33, and no alternate plan had been approved in time. The Court also declined to use its Article 142 powers to retrospectively apply a later amendment reducing the voting threshold to 66%, since doing so would override the express statutory scheme as it stood when these cases were decided.
Once a Committee of Creditors commercially rejects a resolution plan by the requisite vote, courts will not second-guess that business decision or extend statutory deadlines to rescue a failed plan: insolvency timelines and creditor voting outcomes are treated as largely final and non-justiciable on merits.
