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 moreSKS Power Generation (Chhattisgarh) Ltd. went through insolvency proceedings, and after a competitive bidding and negotiation process among several applicants, its Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved the resolution plan of Sarda Energy and Minerals Ltd. (SEML) with a 100% vote share. Three unsuccessful resolution applicants (Torrent Power, Vantage Point Asset Management, and Jindal Power) challenged the plan's approval, alleging that clarifications sought from SEML after the bidding closed effectively let SEML alter its commercial terms without a fresh competitive round, and that this procedural irregularity should have led the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to reject the plan. After a back-and-forth in the NCLT and the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), including one round where the NCLT's earlier order was set aside for not letting the CoC respond, the NCLAT ultimately affirmed the CoC's approval of SEML's plan, and the unsuccessful bidders appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, reaffirming the doctrine of "commercial wisdom" under the IBC: a deliberate legislative choice to give the CoC, which bears the economic risk, decisive authority over commercial matters like plan valuation and terms, with courts confined to a supervisory role checking only statutory compliance and procedural fairness. Examining the specific clarifications sought from SEML (relating to bank guarantee margin money and other technical clauses), the Court found these were genuine clarifications sought at the CoC's direction without altering SEML's underlying commercial terms, not an improper renegotiation favouring one bidder. It held that neither of the two main objections raised by the appellants had merit, and since the plan had already been approved by both the NCLT and NCLAT and was being implemented, there was no scope left for the Court to intervene. The Court added a strong cautionary note that unsuccessful bidders frequently try to dress up commercial disagreements as procedural violations to get a "second shot" through litigation, and that excessive judicial review of CoC decisions undermines the IBC's core goals of speed, certainty, and value preservation, discouraging future bidders and eroding recoveries for creditors.
Once a Committee of Creditors has approved an insolvency resolution plan following a fair and transparent process, courts will not second-guess the CoC's commercial judgment merely because a losing bidder disagrees with the outcome: litigation dressed up as a procedural challenge to relitigate a lost commercial bid is discouraged, since delay itself destroys value for all stakeholders in an insolvency process.
