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 moreMoniveda Consultants LLP, a 40% shareholder of Shajas Developers Private Limited (which held a valuable Mumbai slum-redevelopment land parcel worth an estimated Rs. 1000 crores through its subsidiary), alleged that its assets and control were being usurped by other shareholders and a personal guarantor of the company's loans. After the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) declined interim relief in the underlying oppression-and-mismanagement petition, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) partly intervened, restraining the parties from taking "perceptive steps" for a limited period. Both sides appealed to the Supreme Court, and during the pendency of these appeals the entity holding the project land was itself admitted into corporate insolvency proceedings, adding complexity while contempt petitions were also filed alleging violation of the Court's interim restraint orders.
The Supreme Court declined to go into the merits of the underlying oppression/mismanagement allegations or the contempt allegations, noting the project land was the principal disputed asset and the Company Petition remained pending before the NCLT. It held that the paramount consideration was to preserve the subject matter of the dispute until the NCLT could adjudicate, and continued the interim status quo arrangement it had been maintaining through earlier orders (having previously permitted only limited protective construction works, like foundation-laying and retaining walls, to safeguard neighbouring buildings, without permitting further development). The Court directed that no steps be taken to alter the property's nature or create new third-party interests in it, modified the NCLAT's order accordingly, and directed the NCLT, Mumbai to expeditiously decide the underlying Company Petition, preferably within two months of the parties' appearance. All contentions on the merits were left open for the NCLT to decide.
In ongoing corporate control disputes, higher courts will often preserve the disputed asset's status quo through interim orders rather than deciding the underlying merits themselves, deferring substantive adjudication to the specialized tribunal (NCLT) while ensuring the asset isn't irreversibly altered in the meantime.
