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 moreAfter a cheque issued by a company in favour of the appellant was dishonoured for insufficient funds, the appellant sent a statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act only to the company, not individually to its directors, before filing a criminal complaint against the company and its directors. The trial court convicted the company but acquitted two of the directors (the respondents), holding, relying on a Madras High Court ruling, that individual notice to each director was legally required. The Bombay High Court refused the appellant leave to appeal against that acquittal, and the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Section 138 does not require a separate, individual statutory notice to each director of a company: a notice to the company itself is sufficient, since directors in charge of its affairs are presumed to be aware of it. The Court reasoned that reading in a requirement of individual notice would make the summary remedy for cheque dishonour unworkable and could let the strict, non-extendable limitation period be exploited to defeat genuine claims. It expressly overruled the contrary view of the Madras High Court in B. Raman v. M/s. Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Ltd., set aside the Bombay High Court's order refusing leave to appeal, and sent the leave application back to the High Court to be decided afresh on its merits (since the High Court had rejected it solely on the now-overruled legal ground, without considering the application itself).
A company's directors cannot escape liability for a dishonoured cheque merely because the statutory notice under Section 138 was sent to the company and not to them individually: notice to the company is legally sufficient to fix responsibility on those in charge of its affairs.
