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 moreMobilox had sub-contracted toll-free voting services for the "Nach Baliye" TV show to Kirusa Software, but later withheld payment alleging Kirusa breached a non-disclosure agreement by publicising its involvement in the project. Kirusa sent a demand notice under Section 8 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 claiming an unpaid operational debt of about Rs. 20 lakh, and when Mobilox disputed the claim, filed an application before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) under Section 9 of the Code to trigger insolvency proceedings. The NCLT dismissed the application, but the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) reversed this and admitted the insolvency petition, holding Mobilox's defence was vague and motivated.
The Supreme Court set aside the NCLAT's order and restored the dismissal of the insolvency petition. It laid down the test for what counts as a "dispute" under Section 5(6) and 8(2) of the IBC: a dispute need not already be the subject of pending litigation or arbitration: it is enough that a plausible contention exists which requires further investigation and is not spurious, frivolous, hypothetical, or illusory. Examining the correspondence between the parties, the Court found Mobilox had raised a genuine, non-frivolous defence (breach of the NDA) well before the demand notice was issued, so a real "dispute" existed and the operational creditor's application could not be admitted under the summary IBC process.
A company facing an insolvency petition over a disputed debt can defeat it at the threshold simply by showing a genuine, pre-existing dispute (even an email exchange raising a real grievance): the IBC's fast-track insolvency process is not meant to be used as a debt-recovery shortcut where a bona fide dispute already exists between the parties.
