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 more141 buyers ("allottees") of commercial office space in the "Grand Venezia Commercial Tower" project in Uttar Pradesh, a project launched in 2005 that was supposed to be handed over by 2013, jointly applied to the NCLT to start insolvency proceedings against the two linked developer companies, Bhasin Infotech and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Grand Venezia Commercial Towers Pvt. Ltd., after years of non-delivery of possession and non-payment of promised "assured returns." The NCLT admitted the case and the NCLAT dismissed the developers' appeals; the erstwhile directors then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the required 100-allottee threshold under Section 7 of the IBC was not genuinely met, that a single petition could not be filed against two separate companies, and that construction was actually complete.
The Supreme Court dismissed all three connected appeals. It held the 100-allottee threshold was satisfied because it must be assessed as of the date the petition was filed (per Manish Kumar v. Union of India), not later after settlements; changes made to the list of allottees while the petition was returned for curing defects (before formal registration) were procedurally permissible and not an abuse of process. On the "two companies, one petition" objection, the Court found the two developers were intrinsically linked (common directors, interchangeable correspondence with allottees, and a marketing agreement) making joint insolvency proceedings appropriate to maximize recovery for allottees. Finally, on the claim that construction was complete, the Court relied on a court-appointed Observer's on-site report from May 2025 showing several floors were bare-shell structures lacking basic amenities, and held the developers' possession letters were legally ineffective because the land-lease terms required tripartite sublease deeds (never executed) before actual possession could lawfully be delivered.
In real-estate insolvency cases, courts will look past paper "possession letters" and completion claims to the actual on-ground condition of a project, and closely linked group companies developing a single project cannot escape joint insolvency proceedings by claiming to be legally separate entities when their conduct shows otherwise.
