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 financial creditor (predecessor of Omkara Assets Reconstruction) sought to recover over Rs.154 crore owed by a corporate debtor company and applied to the Adjudicating Authority under the IBC to start Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP). The company resisted, pointing to a decades-old Scheme of Arrangement (SOA) with its creditors that was pending, and later belatedly sanctioned, before the Punjab and Haryana High Court under the Companies Act. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal had put the insolvency case on hold until the High Court proceedings concluded, prompting the creditor's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court found that the company had never complied with the statutory timelines for finalizing the Scheme of Arrangement: the required "second motion" for court sanction was filed years late, the sanction itself came a decade after the creditors' meeting, and even the sanction order was not filed with the Registrar of Companies within the prescribed period. Because of these prolonged, uncured lapses, the Court held the SOA had become defunct and unenforceable, and there was no valid reason to let it override or stall the IBC proceedings on grounds of "judicial discipline." Relying on precedent that the IBC has an overriding effect under Section 238 and exists to revive companies rather than let stale arrangements shield mismanagement, the Court set aside the Appellate Tribunal's order and restored the initiation of CIRP by the Adjudicating Authority.
A restructuring scheme approved under company law cannot be used indefinitely to block insolvency recovery proceedings if its own statutory procedures and timelines were never properly followed. Courts will not let procedural delay by a defaulting company be dressed up as "pending litigation" to escape accountability to creditors.
