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 moreSCM Solifert Limited acquired a 24.46% stake in Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Limited (MCFL) through share purchases in 2013, and later acquired a further 0.8% in 2014 which pushed its total holding above 25%, but it did not notify the Competition Commission of India (CCI) about the first acquisition at all and notified the second one only after the purchase had already happened. The CCI imposed a Rupees Two Crore penalty for this failure to give advance notice as required by Section 6(2) of the Competition Act, and the Competition Appellate Tribunal upheld that penalty on appeal.
The Supreme Court held that the 24.46% share acquisition could not be treated as a mere passive "investment" exempt from notification, because the company's own contemporaneous press release described the deal as "very strategic" and spoke of working closely with MCFL going forward, showing an intent beyond simple investment; acquisitions below 10% may qualify as pure investment, but this one far exceeded that threshold. On the second acquisition, the Court rejected the argument that placing the newly purchased shares in an escrow account excused the late notification, holding that the law requires notice to the CCI before a combination is carried out (ex-ante), not an after-the-fact notification once the transaction is already done. As with the companion case against Thomas Cook decided the same week, the Court held that no proof of bad intent (mens rea) is needed to justify a penalty for this kind of regulatory breach: the penalty follows automatically once the violation is established, with only the amount being discretionary. Finding the Rupees Two Crore penalty (just 0.06% of the group's turnover) to be a modest sanction for a genuine violation, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty.
Companies must notify the competition regulator about significant share acquisitions before completing them, not after, describing a transaction internally as "strategic" rather than a simple investment, or routing shares through an escrow account, will not excuse a failure to seek advance regulatory clearance.
