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 moreBharti Telecom Limited (BTL), a closely held company whose only real business was its investment in the listed Bharti Airtel Limited (BAL), decided to reduce its share capital by compulsorily cancelling the shares of a small group of minority individual shareholders and paying them Rs.163.25 (later revised by the NCLT to Rs.196.80) per share. A group of these minority shareholders, who had themselves voted in favour of the resolution, later challenged the buyout before the NCLT and NCLAT, and eventually the Supreme Court, arguing that the valuation process was procedurally unfair, used a flawed and undisclosed methodology (including an improper "Discount for Lack of Marketability"), and fixed an unreasonably low price compared to past purchase offers for the shares.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the valuation exercise had been conducted by a reputed international valuer with a fairness opinion from a SEBI-registered merchant banker, that the price fixed compared reasonably against the company's own trading and rights-issue history (as opposed to speculative unauthenticated third-party offers), and that valuation is fundamentally a matter of expert judgment that courts should not second-guess absent evidence the valuer went badly "off-track." The Court applied a four-part test, whether a fair value was offered, whether the majority of non-promoter shareholders approved it, whether it would strike a reasonable person as egregiously wrong, and whether the valuer's process was fundamentally flawed, and found none of those factors favoured the objecting shareholders, especially since they were sophisticated investors who had themselves voted for or acquiesced in the resolution and only objected after the fact. The Court held that an unfavourable price alone does not establish "prejudice" warranting judicial interference; there must be demonstrable arbitrariness or palpable bias.
Courts give significant deference to expert valuations of company shares carried out through a proper, disclosed process and approved by the shareholder majority; a minority shareholder who voted for a corporate resolution cannot later successfully challenge it merely because they are dissatisfied with the outcome, without showing the valuation itself was arbitrary or fundamentally flawed.
