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 moreAirports Authority of India (AAI), which handles export cargo operations (unloading, X-ray, packing, etc.) at airports, was assessed service tax by the Commissioner (Adjudication) for the period 2003-2007 under "Storage and Warehousing Service" and later "Airport Services." AAI's appeal to CESTAT was dismissed except that liability was confirmed only from 10.09.2004 onward under the "Airport Services" category. AAI challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing that handling of "export cargo" is expressly excluded from the definition of "cargo handling service" under Section 65(23) of the Finance Act, 1994, and therefore should not attract service tax.
The Court explained that Section 65 merely defines terms, while the actual charging provision is Section 66, which taxes all services falling under any sub-clause of Section 65(105), including sub-clause (zzm): a broad category covering any service provided by an Airport Authority at any airport. The Court held that the specific exclusion of "export cargo" from the narrower "cargo handling service" definition does not exempt AAI's services from the separate, wider "taxable service" definition under sub-clause (zzm), which was introduced with effect from 10.09.2004. Circulars relied on by AAI could not override the express statutory language. The appeal was dismissed and the CESTAT order upheld.
An exclusion carved out under one specific statutory definition does not automatically exempt an activity from tax if it independently falls under a separate, broader taxable-service category: each charging provision must be read on its own terms, and circulars cannot override clear statutory text.
