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 moreRakesh Bhanot and several others were facing criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (cheque dishonour) for cheques that bounced due to insufficient funds. While these criminal cases were pending, the accused persons filed applications under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) seeking personal insolvency resolution, and then argued that the "interim moratorium" this triggered under Section 96 IBC should automatically stay the criminal cheque-bounce proceedings against them. Multiple High Courts had rejected this argument, leading to this batch of appeals (and one writ petition raising the same question) before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals (except for three cases where the facts were different and the point was conceded), holding that the interim moratorium under Section 96 IBC protects a debtor only from civil proceedings aimed at recovering a debt. It does not extend to criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court reasoned that cheque-dishonour prosecution punishes personal criminal wrongdoing (dishonouring a negotiable instrument), not merely recovery of a debt, and that allowing the IBC moratorium to block such prosecutions would let wrongdoers escape criminal accountability simply by filing for insolvency. It reaffirmed its earlier ruling in P. Mohanraj that similar reasoning applies even under the company-insolvency moratorium (Section 14 IBC), and clarified that directors/individuals liable under Section 141 of the NI Act remain personally answerable regardless of any moratorium applicable to a corporate debtor.
Filing for personal or corporate insolvency does not give a person immunity from criminal prosecution for bounced cheques: the insolvency law's protective "moratorium" only pauses civil debt-recovery actions, not criminal liability for dishonouring a cheque.
