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 appellant was an independent non-executive director of a company that took two loans and later issued cheques toward repayment, all of which bounced for insufficient funds. He was made an accused in four criminal complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act even though he had not signed any of the cheques and had already resigned from the board (with the resignation formally filed with the Registrar of Companies) before the relevant events fully played out. The Bombay High Court had refused to quash the proceedings against him, holding that his role as director was a matter to be examined at trial.
The Supreme Court held that merely being a director does not automatically create criminal liability for a company's dishonoured cheques - the complaint must contain specific factual averments showing the accused was actually in charge of and responsible for the company's business at the relevant time. Relying on its earlier rulings (including National Small Industries Corporation v. Harmeet Singh Paintal and Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra), the Court found that the complaints against the appellant contained no such specific allegations, and noted he was a non-executive director with no financial role, was not a signatory to the cheques, and had resigned before the relevant transactions matured into dishonour. It therefore set aside the High Court's order and quashed all four criminal complaints against him.
Simply holding the title of "director" - especially a non-executive, independent director - does not by itself expose a person to criminal liability for a company's bounced cheques; a complainant must specifically plead how that individual was actually in charge of the company's day-to-day business.
