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 company's managing director had personally guaranteed loans owed by the company to the State Bank of India; when the company defaulted, the bank issued SARFAESI notices against both the company and the guarantor. Before the bank could act further, the company itself applied for and was admitted into the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, triggering a statutory moratorium on proceedings against the company under Section 14. Both the National Company Law Tribunal and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal held that this moratorium also protected the personal guarantor from being pursued, and the bank appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Section 14, read plainly, refers only to the "corporate debtor" and contains no mention of guarantors, so its moratorium cannot be stretched to cover a personal guarantor's separate assets. It explained that other provisions relied upon by the guarantor, Sections 60(2)/(3) and 31, only fix which tribunal has jurisdiction over a guarantor's bankruptcy or bind the guarantor to an approved resolution plan; they do not create or extend any moratorium protection to the guarantor personally. The Court also noted that Parliament's 2018 amendment, which expressly excluded sureties/guarantors from the Section 14 moratorium, was clarificatory and confirmed this was always the correct position, and that allowing guarantors to escape liability during the company's insolvency process would defeat the entire purpose of taking a personal guarantee. The appeals were accordingly allowed and the Tribunal's contrary ruling set aside.
A personal guarantor to a company's loan cannot hide behind the moratorium that protects the company once it enters insolvency proceedings: banks and creditors remain free to pursue the guarantor's own personal assets and liability independently.
