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 partnership firm holding a limestone mining lease in Rajasthan obtained the State's permission to convert itself into a private limited company, declaring that no money was changing hands and that the same partners would simply continue as the company's directors. Soon after, however, the new company's entire shareholding, and effectively control of the company and its mining lease, was sold to another industrial group for around Rs. 160 crore, and its directors were replaced by nominees of the buyer. When this came to light, the State cancelled its earlier transfer permission as having been obtained by a false declaration, but the High Court quashed that cancellation, holding that a mere sale of a company's shares is not the same as a sale of the company's mining lease asset.
The Supreme Court held that while it is generally true that a company's shareholders are legally distinct from the company and its assets, that principle must yield to the doctrine of "piercing the corporate veil" where a share-sale is being used merely as a device to disguise what is in substance an unauthorised private sale of a mining lease for consideration, something expressly barred without the mining authority's prior written consent under Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1986. Since the original lessee had falsely declared that no consideration was involved in converting to a private company, when in truth that conversion was merely a stepping stone to selling the lease itself, the transaction amounted to "suppressio veri and suggestio falsi" (suppression of the truth and assertion of a falsehood) and was void under Rule 72. The Court accordingly allowed the State's appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and upheld the State's power to cancel such a transfer in exercise of its public-trust duty over mineral resources, while directing the State to frame and notify a transparent policy on such transfers within one month and then pass a fresh order on this specific lease in light of that policy, with status quo to be maintained in the meantime.
Businesses cannot use a company-conversion-plus-share-sale structure to get around a legal requirement of prior government consent for transferring a licence or lease for consideration: courts will look past the corporate form to the real, substantive transaction, and a sham disclosure made to obtain regulatory permission can render the whole transfer void.
