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 moreThis was a landmark batch of nearly 190 writ petitions and a connected appeal, filed by real estate developers (led by Pioneer Urban Land) challenging 2018 amendments to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The amendments had deemed home buyers who had booked flats/apartments to be "financial creditors" of the developer, giving them the right to drag a builder into insolvency proceedings and to vote in the Committee of Creditors, just like banks and other lenders. Developers argued this classification was arbitrary and violated their constitutional rights to equality and to carry on business, since home buyers are fundamentally different from financial institutions.
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the amendments in their entirety, rejecting the challenge under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution. The Court held that home buyers were always intended to fall within the residuary "financial debt" clause of Section 5(8)(f) of the Code even before the 2018 amendment, and the explanation added by the amendment was merely clarificatory, not a fresh enlargement of the law. It also held that the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act (RERA) and the IBC operate as concurrent, not conflicting, remedies: a home buyer can choose to proceed under RERA, consumer protection law, or trigger insolvency under the IBC, and only in case of actual conflict does the Code prevail. The Court directed all States/Union Territories to urgently complete setting up the regulatory and appellate bodies required under RERA, and directed the Union Government to ensure the insolvency tribunals (NCLT/NCLAT) are adequately staffed given the expected surge in real-estate insolvency cases. All the writ petitions and the connected appeal were disposed of in these terms.
A person who has paid money to a builder for a flat that was never delivered is legally treated as a creditor of that builder, with real rights in insolvency proceedings against the builder, not just a customer waiting for possession, giving stalled-project home buyers a powerful tool alongside RERA and consumer forums.
