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 moreAd Bureau Advertising, an advertising company, took a Rs. 10 crore project loan from Central Bank of India to help finance the post-production of a film. After the company defaulted, the loan was settled through a one-time settlement and the bank issued a "No-Dues Certificate," but it nonetheless later reported the company to RBI/CIBIL as a defaulter. This wrongful reporting caused the company to lose an advertising contract with the Airports Authority of India when another bank refused to issue a required guarantee. The company filed a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which awarded it Rs. 75 lakh in compensation; the bank appealed, and the company cross-appealed seeking more.
The Supreme Court held that the NCDRC should have first determined whether the company even qualified as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act before deciding the merits. Since the loan was taken purely for a business purpose (financing a film for profit, with brand-building as at most a secondary benefit) the transaction was a "business-to-business" one entered for a "commercial purpose," which the Act expressly excludes from consumer protection, regardless of the size or identity of the borrower. As a result, the company was not a "consumer" and the NCDRC lacked jurisdiction to entertain its complaint at all; the compensation order was set aside, though the company remained free to pursue other legal remedies for the alleged wrongful credit reporting.
A business that takes a loan or service purely to generate profit for its commercial operations cannot use the Consumer Protection Act's simplified forums to seek compensation, however genuine the grievance, and must instead pursue ordinary civil remedies, since consumer protection law is reserved for non-commercial, personal use of goods and services.
