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 moreThe U.P. State Industrial Development Corporation had leased industrial plots to four different companies (Monsanto Manufactures, U.P. Twiga Fiberglass, Enrich Engineering, and Super Tannery India) decades earlier. In each case, the Corporation later discovered changes in the companies' shareholding, directorship, or ownership (through share transfers, insolvency sales, or corporate amalgamation) and demanded a "transfer levy" on the theory that this amounted to an unauthorized transfer of the leased plot's controlling interest. The Allahabad High Court, in four separate proceedings, ruled against the Corporation and quashed its demand notices, reasoning that a company's legal identity does not change merely because its shareholders or directors change.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court across all four cases and restored the Corporation's transfer-levy demands. It held that a company is a distinct legal entity from its shareholders, but when the entire original shareholding, directorship, and effectively the "controlling interest" of a lessee company is handed over to an entirely new set of owners (as happened in each case), this amounts to a "disposal of controlling interest" under the Corporation's transfer guidelines, triggering liability for the levy, even without a formal transfer of the lease deed itself. The Court found there was a strong public-interest rationale for enforcing this rule, since allottees of subsidized industrial land should not be able to profit by effectively selling control of the land through a change of company ownership while keeping the same corporate shell.
Selling or transferring the controlling ownership of a company that holds a government-leased asset can be treated as a "transfer" of that asset itself, even if the lease or title documents are never formally re-assigned, so lessees of public land cannot avoid transfer charges simply by changing hands at the shareholder level instead of the lease level.
