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 moreDaiichi Sankyo had won an arbitral award of roughly Rs. 3,500 crores against promoters linked to Fortis Healthcare and related group companies (including Oscar Investments, RHC Holding, Malvinder and Shivinder Singh). To protect the award's enforceability, the Supreme Court had earlier passed orders (11.08.2017 onward) restraining dealings in shares/assets that could defeat the award. The contempt petition alleged that Sameer Gehlaut and other directors of Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited and Indiabulls Ventures Limited, along with the Singh brothers and their companies, knowingly violated these restraint orders by pledging and dealing with shares despite the Court's directions.
The Supreme Court held that Sameer Gehlaut, Gagan Banga, Ashwini Kumar Hooda, Sachin Chaudhary, Divyesh Bharat Kumar Shah and Pinank Jayant Shah (directors of the Indiabulls entities), as well as Malvinder Mohan Singh and Shivinder Mohan Singh, had knowingly and wilfully disobeyed the Court's earlier restraint orders and held them guilty of contempt of court. The Court gave the contemnors a chance to purge the contempt by depositing specified sums (value of 12,25,000 shares for the Indiabulls directors, and Rs. 1,170.95 crores each for the Singh brothers) within eight weeks, after which a lenient view on sentencing could be considered; sentencing itself was reserved for a later hearing. The Court also found that further transactions appeared to violate a subsequent order dated 14.12.2018 and directed the Registry to register a fresh suo motu contempt petition against RHC, Oscar Investments, the Singh brothers and Fortis Healthcare Limited, returnable on 03.02.2020.
Deliberately defying a Supreme Court restraint order, even through corporate transactions routed via group companies, amounts to contempt of court regardless of corporate structuring, and courts may allow contemnors a final opportunity to "purge" contempt through compliance before sentencing, rather than imposing punishment immediately.
