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 Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB), a statutory port authority, had licensed a cement company (via Larsen & Toubro, later Ultratech) to build and use a private jetty at Pipavav Port for its own cargo. Under the licence, the cement company bore all costs of building, maintaining, and running the jetty, while GMB collected 20% of the standard "wharfage" (landing/shipping) fee as a rebate against the construction cost, plus a fixed annual licence fee. The tax department argued that this 20% collection was payment for a taxable "port service" and demanded over Rs. 1.8 crore in service tax; the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) disagreed and ruled in the Board's favour, prompting the department's appeal.
The Supreme Court held that "port service" under the Finance Act requires an actual service to be rendered by the port (or someone it authorises) in relation to a vessel or goods, but here, it was the licensee cement company, not the Board, that was contractually responsible for maintaining the jetty, dredging, and all related upkeep needed to actually let vessels berth. Since GMB itself did nothing to provide the service, and had not validly authorised the licensee to charge for port services on its behalf (the agreement only let GMB collect money from the licensee, not the reverse), the basic legal requirement for levying service tax was missing. The Court did clarify that the 20% charge was genuinely "wharfage" and not disguised rent, but this made no difference to the outcome. The appeals by the tax department were dismissed.
A government authority cannot be taxed for providing a "service" it never actually performed, where a private contractual party bears all the real operational responsibility (maintenance, dredging, upkeep) under a licence arrangement, collecting a statutory fee alone does not convert the fee-collector into the service provider for tax purposes.
