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 real-estate developer (the appellant, a personal guarantor for his firm) failed to hand over flats to homebuyers on time, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) had earlier imposed 27 penalties on him for this delay. When homebuyers tried to enforce (execute) these penalty orders, the developer argued that since insolvency proceedings had been started against him personally under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), an automatic "interim moratorium" froze all proceedings against him, including the consumer penalty enforcement. The NCDRC rejected this argument, and the developer appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC (which applies to individuals and personal guarantors) is narrower than the moratorium under Section 14 (which applies to companies). It only freezes proceedings relating to a "debt," not all legal proceedings. The Court reasoned that penalties imposed by the NCDRC under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act are regulatory and punitive in nature, meant to enforce compliance and protect consumers, and are not ordinary financial "debt" owed to a creditor. Since Section 79(15) of the IBC excludes fines and similar penal liabilities from the moratorium's protection ("excluded debts"), these consumer penalties could still be enforced despite the insolvency moratorium. The Court also distinguished this from cheque-bounce cases under the NI Act, where the offence itself presumes an underlying debt. The appeal was dismissed, and the developer was directed to comply with the NCDRC penalties within eight weeks.
Filing for personal insolvency does not act as a shield against penalties imposed for violating consumer protection orders: such penalties are treated as regulatory/punitive measures, not as "debt," so they survive an insolvency moratorium and can still be enforced against the guarantor or debtor.
