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 moreMacquarie Bank, an overseas creditor, was owed over US$6.3 million by Shilpi Cable Technologies for goods supplied under a trade finance arrangement. After the debt went unpaid, Macquarie's lawyer sent a statutory demand notice under Section 8 of the newly-enacted Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and then filed an insolvency application under Section 9. Both the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) rejected the application on two technical grounds: that the application lacked a certificate required under Section 9(3)(c) of the Code (confirming no payment had been received), and that a lawyer, rather than the creditor itself, cannot validly send the Section 8 demand notice.
The Supreme Court decided both legal questions in Macquarie's favour. First, it held that the certificate requirement under Section 9(3)(c) is procedural/directory, not mandatory, since a foreign bank's accounts may not be maintained in the specific Indian format the provision envisages, an application cannot be thrown out at the threshold merely for lacking this certificate when other evidence establishes non-payment. Second, relying on Section 30 of the Advocates Act (which entitles advocates to "practice" on behalf of clients) and on the Court's own precedent in Byram Pestonji Gariwala, the Court held that a lawyer is fully competent to issue a Section 8 demand notice on behalf of an operational creditor, just as lawyers can act on behalf of clients in other legal proceedings. Having removed both threshold bars, the Court set aside the NCLAT's judgment and remanded the matter to the NCLAT to proceed with the insolvency application on its merits.
Technical defects, like a missing certificate format or a notice being sent through a lawyer rather than personally, should not be used to throw out a legitimate insolvency claim at the very first step; the law favours deciding such disputes on their substance, and lawyers are legally entitled to issue formal demand notices on behalf of their clients.
