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 moreUjaas Energy Ltd., a solar power contractor, was awarded a tender by West Bengal Power Development Corporation in 2017, but disputes over performance led Ujaas, by then undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the IBC, to invoke arbitration through its resolution professional. The Corporation filed a counterclaim in the arbitration, but never separately submitted that claim to the resolution professional during the CIRP, and the resolution plan was later approved without including it. The Arbitral Tribunal rejected the counterclaim outright by an interim award, reasoning that all claims not part of the approved resolution plan stood extinguished; a Single Judge upheld this, but the High Court's Division Bench set it aside and sent the matter back to the Tribunal, prompting Ujaas's appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined the resolution plan's clause barring "payments/settlements" of claims not included in it and held that, while it validly extinguished the Corporation's ability to independently pursue its counterclaim for a positive award of money, the clause did not expressly or impliedly bar the Corporation from raising the same facts purely as a defensive set-off against Ujaas's claim. The Court reasoned that a bar on affirmative claims for payment is different from using the same facts defensively, and distinguished its earlier ruling in Bharti Airtel v. Aircel as dealing with set-off during CIRP itself, not set-off under a plan approved after CIRP concluded. It therefore modified the Division Bench's order, permitting the Corporation to raise set-off only as a shield (to reduce or defeat Ujaas's claim) and not as a sword (it cannot recover any surplus even if its set-off amount exceeds what is owed to Ujaas), and clarified that if Ujaas withdraws its claim, the Corporation's defensive set-off also falls away. The appeal was partly allowed on these terms, with parties bearing their own costs.
Once a company's insolvency resolution plan is approved, unclaimed dues against it are generally extinguished for recovery purposes, but a creditor may still be allowed to use the same facts defensively to resist a claim brought against it: the "clean slate" principle protects a resolved company from being forced to pay old dues, but does not necessarily let it recover the full amount of a fresh claim without accounting for a legitimate defensive set-off.
