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 respondent, Chairman and Managing Director of Procter & Gamble India, received Stock Appreciation Rights (SARs) from P&G USA and redeemed them for cash before a 1999 amendment to the Finance Act came into force. The Assessing Officer treated the redemption proceeds as taxable income, substantially increasing his declared income, but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and later the Gujarat High Court ruled largely in the respondent's favour. The Revenue (tax department) appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the amount was taxable either as a perquisite or as a business benefit under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act.
The Supreme Court held that a CBDT Circular relied on by the Revenue dealt only with shares issued to employees below market price, which was a different situation from the SARs allotted here, and that a circular cannot be used to create a new tax liability that the statute itself does not impose. It further held that Section 28(iv), which taxes benefits "arising from business or profession," did not apply because the SAR redemption had no connection to any business or professional activity. Since the amendment that could have made such amounts taxable came into force only from 1 April 2000 and the redemption happened before that date, and tax statutes must be construed strictly against imposing liability where none is expressly provided, the Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals, leaving each side to bear its own costs.
Tax authorities cannot stretch a circular or a general provision to tax an amount that the law, as it stood at the relevant time, did not expressly cover, taxing statutes are interpreted strictly, and retrospective tax liability cannot be assumed without a clear statutory basis.
