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 moreA rubber company, Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd., was amalgamated into Aspinwall and Co. Ltd. under a scheme approved in November 2006, with the amalgamating company carrying accumulated tax losses on its books. Aspinwall claimed it could set off these losses against its own subsequent income under the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, relying on a clause in the amalgamation scheme stating that all profits, income, expenditure and losses of the amalgamating company would be treated as those of Aspinwall. Tax authorities rejected this claim, and Aspinwall's challenges failed before the Kerala Agricultural Income Tax and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Kerala High Court across five connected appeals spanning different assessment years.
The Supreme Court rejected Aspinwall's reliance on its own earlier decision in Dalmia Power Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, holding that case was distinguishable because there the Income Tax Department had been given mandatory statutory notice of the amalgamation scheme under the Companies Act, 2013 and had raised no objection, making the scheme's terms binding. Here, by contrast, no such statutory notice requirement existed under the 1956 Companies Act framework applicable to this amalgamation, and no notice was in fact given to the State Government, so the clause in the scheme purporting to transfer the losses could not automatically bind the tax authorities. The Court also noted that the appellant could not point to any specific provision of the Kerala Act itself permitting such a set-off, and that an independent factual finding, that the loss in question was more than 8 years old and thus time-barred under Section 12 of the Kerala Act, was unchallenged. All five appeals were accordingly dismissed.
A private scheme of amalgamation cannot bind a tax authority to accept a loss set-off unless the authority was given proper statutory notice and had an opportunity to object. Courts will not extend a favourable precedent to facts where the underlying statutory notice safeguard was absent.
