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 moreM/s Mahendra Petrochemicals Ltd. (MPL) went into winding-up, with IFCI holding first charge (Rs. 160 crore outstanding) and Bank of Baroda holding second charge over its assets as secured creditors. After the winding-up order, IFCI assigned its entire Rs. 160 crore debt to the appellant for just Rs. 85 lakh, and the appellant then applied to the Company Court to be substituted in IFCI's place as a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act. The Company Judge rejected this, holding the appellant was not a bank, financial institution, or similarly qualified entity under the SARFAESI Act and so could not be substituted as a secured creditor, and could not rely on Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act for that purpose either; a subsequent recall/review application and an appeal to a Division Bench both failed, leading to this further appeal to the Supreme Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant performed a complete about-turn, now claiming it had never sought status as a secured creditor at all and had only ever wanted recognition as a transferee of an actionable claim under Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act. The Court rejected this, holding that the Company Judge's order itself recorded, in explicit and unambiguous terms, that the appellant had specifically argued for substitution as a secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act, a recital of court proceedings that is treated as authoritative, and that the appellant could not now deny having made that argument. Relying on its earlier rulings in Amar Singh v. Union of India and Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association v. DG of Civil Aviation, the Court held that a litigant cannot approbate and reprobate, i.e., cannot take one position to get a favourable ruling and then flatly deny having taken that position when it loses, since doing so amounts to playing fast and loose with the court. Finding no merit in the appeal on this ground, the Court dismissed it.
A party cannot change its own legal position mid-litigation to escape an unfavourable ruling, once a specific claim or argument is placed on record before a court (and recorded in its order), a litigant is bound by it and cannot later deny ever having made that argument; courts treat such contradictory conduct as an abuse of process.
