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 appellant was a director of a company that had drawn eleven cheques totalling about Rs.11.17 lakh in favour of the respondent, its business partner. The cheques were dishonoured, and insolvency proceedings against the company (with a moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC and appointment of an interim resolution professional) began on 25 July 2018, before the demand notice for the dishonoured cheques was even issued on 6 August 2018. Despite this, a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the appellant personally, and the Punjab and Haryana High Court refused to quash it.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court wrongly relied on P. Mohan Raj v. Shah Brothers Ispat, since in that case the cause of action under Section 138 arose before the moratorium, whereas here it arose only after the moratorium began (the 15-day payment window following the demand notice expired only in late August 2018). The Court explained that a cheque-bounce offence is only complete when the drawer fails to pay within 15 days of the demand notice, and once the moratorium was imposed and an interim resolution professional (IRP) took over management under Section 17 of the IBC, the appellant (suspended as director) had no power to arrange repayment at all. Since the appellant was legally incapable of complying with the demand notice, prosecuting him personally was unjustified, and the Court quashed the summoning order and the criminal complaint.
Once a company enters insolvency and an interim resolution professional takes charge, a suspended director cannot be held personally liable for a cheque bounced on the company's behalf if the demand notice and payment deadline fall entirely within the moratorium period, because he genuinely loses the power to pay.
