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 moreFollowing a search at the respondent's factory, excise authorities alleged that the respondent manufactured certain wax products without following mandatory excise procedures. The respondent challenged the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner to proceed, and the Calcutta High Court directed that this preliminary jurisdictional objection be decided first. A Show Cause Notice was subsequently issued, but questions arose over whether the matter had actually proceeded to a proper adjudication and whether the respondent's appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal was even maintainable at that stage. The Tribunal dismissed the Commissioner's appeal, leading to this further appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court examined whether the matter had actually reached the stage of a completed adjudication and assessment of duty, finding that it had not: the matter had not gone beyond the Show Cause Notice stage. It held that a government circular setting monetary limits below which excise/tax appeals should not be pursued did not apply here, because the real issue was not a quantified duty dispute but the correctness of whether any adjudication had occurred and whether the respondent's appeal was maintainable at all. The Court set aside both the Tribunal's order and the order under appeal, and directed that the original Show Cause Notice proceedings be carried forward to their logical conclusion, giving the respondent three weeks to file its response and place supporting material. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Government circulars that set monetary thresholds for pursuing tax/excise appeals are meant for genuine quantified duty disputes, not for cases that turn on preliminary legal questions like whether a valid adjudication occurred at all or whether an appeal was maintainable in the first place.
