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 company (Premier Cable Company Ltd.) was ordered wound up, and its Official Liquidator auctioned off its assets, including land, buildings, and machinery, to the respondent-purchaser for about Rs. 5.76 crore inclusive of all taxes. A dispute arose over whether the Official Liquidator was a "dealer" under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963 and therefore liable to collect/pay sales tax on that sale; a Single Judge and a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court initially held the Liquidator was not a dealer, and on review the High Court further held that it was instead the auction purchaser who was liable to pay purchase tax under Section 5A of the Act. The tax department appealed to the Supreme Court, while the auction purchaser's own separate appeal on the purchase-tax question had already been decided in its favour by the Court in an earlier, related order.
The Supreme Court held that an Official Liquidator, although an officer of the court, effectively steps into the shoes of the company in liquidation when selling its assets, and that such a sale amounts to a "transfer of goods" falling within the broad definition of "dealer" under Section 2(viii)(f) of the Act. Relying on English precedent (Re Mesco Properties) and Rule 54 of the Kerala Sales Tax Rules (which makes a receiver/manager handling a dealer's business liable for sales tax in the same way as the dealer), the Court concluded that the Official Liquidator, standing in for the company, which was itself a "dealer", was liable to pay the sales tax on the auction sale. Since the auction purchaser's offer was already inclusive of all taxes and the Revenue's own counsel had confirmed before the High Court that the Liquidator bore this liability, the Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's judgments holding otherwise, while noting the auction purchaser itself had already been held not liable to pay sales tax in a connected order.
When a court-appointed Official Liquidator sells a company's assets in a winding-up, the liquidator, not the buyer, is generally the one responsible for sales tax on that sale, because the liquidator legally steps into the company's shoes as the "dealer" for that transaction.
