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 moreA corporate debtor holding a mining lease went through Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the IBC after a financial creditor's application was admitted by the NCLT, Chennai. During the resolution process, the Karnataka government refused to grant a deemed extension of the corporate debtor's mining lease. The Resolution Professional approached the NCLT seeking a direction compelling the state government to execute the deemed extension, and the NCLT granted this relief. The State of Karnataka challenged this before the Karnataka High Court under Articles 226/227, and the High Court stayed the NCLT's order, prompting the Resolution Applicant, the Corporate Debtor, and the Committee of Creditors to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition despite the availability of a statutory appeal remedy to the NCLAT, because the dispute concerned the legality of a government's refusal to extend a mining lease, a matter of public/administrative law under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, which falls outside the NCLT's specialised jurisdiction under the IBC. The Court clarified that while NCLT/NCLAT do have jurisdiction to inquire into allegations of fraud relating to the initiation or conduct of insolvency proceedings (under Sections 65 and 66 of the IBC), they cannot adjudicate disputes arising from decisions of statutory or quasi-judicial authorities exercising powers under separate legislation, since such decisions can only be corrected through judicial review by a High Court. On this basis, the Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court's interim order, with no order as to costs.
The IBC's insolvency tribunals (NCLT/NCLAT) are specialised forums limited to insolvency resolution and cannot be used as a shortcut to challenge decisions made by government or statutory authorities under other laws (like mining or licensing decisions): those challenges must go through the ordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Courts.
