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 moreIn 2012, a company then called Moryo Industries Limited (later renamed Terrascope Ventures Limited) raised about Rs. 15.87 crore through a preferential allotment of shares to 42 entities, stating the funds would be used for business expansion. SEBI's investigation found that, instead, the funds were diverted almost immediately into purchasing shares of other companies and making loans/advances, which SEBI alleged was part of a scheme to generate artificial long-term capital gains through price manipulation. SEBI's Whole Time Member first restrained the company, its directors (including Mr. and Mrs. Saraf), and associated allottees from the securities market, and later an Adjudicating Officer imposed monetary penalties on them for violating the PFUTP Regulations and the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act. The Securities Appellate Tribunal set aside these penalties, prompting SEBI's appeal to the Supreme Court; the respondents did not appear, so the Court appointed an amicus curiae to represent their side.
The Supreme Court allowed SEBI's appeals, set aside the SAT's order, and restored the Adjudicating Officer's penalty order. It held that the Whole Time Member's earlier interim order (restraining market access) and the Adjudicating Officer's later penalty order operated in separate fields under different statutory powers and were not duplicative: the WTM at the relevant time could only restrain access and order disgorgement, while the power to impose a monetary penalty for fraud under Section 15HA vested separately in the Adjudicating Officer. The Court distinguished the precedents relied on by the respondents (Nirmal N. Kotecha and Ram Kishori Gupta) as factually different, since in this case there was no prior final order covering the same cause of action that the penalty order improperly supplemented. It also found the quantum of penalty proportionate to the fraud established.
A market restraint/disgorgement order by SEBI's Whole Time Member and a separate monetary penalty by the Adjudicating Officer for the same underlying fraud are not automatically duplicative. They can validly coexist where they are exercises of distinct statutory powers, and a company or its promoters cannot escape penalty merely because an earlier, different kind of regulatory action was already taken against them.
