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 moreBharat Petroleum Corporation Limited bought a parcel of land from the Government of India in 2014, paying the full sale consideration and taking possession, with the registered transfer deed executed in 2016. When BPCL presented the deed for registration and paid stamp duty on the stated consideration, the registering officer instead made a reference under Section 47-A of the Stamp Act to the District Revenue Officer, alleging the value was understated (based on a higher government guideline rate), and issued a show-cause notice demanding additional stamp duty. BPCL challenged the notice directly in the Madras High Court instead of contesting it before the revenue authority. A Single Judge quashed the notice, relying on an earlier Supreme Court ruling (V.N. Devadoss) that Section 47-A can only be invoked where there is fraudulent intent to evade duty; the Division Bench reversed this, holding the writ petition against a mere show-cause notice was premature and sent the matter back for adjudication. BPCL then appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court held that a writ court can normally interdict a show-cause notice only in two narrow situations (total lack of jurisdiction, or mala fide/abuse of jurisdiction) and this case fell into neither, since the District Revenue Officer plainly had the power to invoke Section 47-A. On the substantive legal question, the Bench closely re-examined its own precedent in V.N. Devadoss, which had read a requirement of "wilful undervaluation with fraudulent intent" into Section 47-A, and found that requirement is not actually present in the plain text of the provision, which only requires "reason to believe" that the true market value was not stated. Using two illustrations (an honest sale of an encumbered property versus a genuinely fraudulent cash-component sale), the Court explained that grafting a fraud requirement onto Section 47-A produces unjust results in both directions, burdening honest sellers with proving innocence while letting genuinely fraudulent transactions escape scrutiny for lack of proof of intent. However, since V.N. Devadoss was decided by a three-judge bench (a larger bench than the present two-judge bench), the Court held it could not simply overrule it. Instead, it referred the correctness of V.N. Devadoss (and a related decision, Registrar of Assurances v. ASL Vyapar) to be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration by a larger bench, leaving the present appeal's ultimate outcome contingent on that reference's resolution.
A property buyer/purchaser who has honestly paid stamp duty on the actual, justifiable market value of a property should generally raise defences to a stamp-duty short-levy notice before the statutory authority (and appellate machinery) rather than rushing to a writ court, since courts will interfere with a show-cause notice only for want of jurisdiction or bad faith, not simply because the recipient disagrees with the valuation. The case also flags an unsettled but important legal question, whether stamp authorities need to prove fraudulent intent before demanding extra duty for undervaluation, that is now pending before a larger Supreme Court bench.
