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 moreActing on intelligence, excise authorities searched two units, Bhagyalaxmi Processor Industry (Unit 1) and Famous Textile Packers (Unit 2), situated in the same compound, which were processing cotton fabrics using power-driven machinery without following the procedures required under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Commissioner issued a show cause notice and later confirmed a demand of excise duty, interest and penalty against the units. The CESTAT (tribunal) set aside this order, reasoning that each unit performed a distinct process and that the demand against Unit 2 had not been separately confirmed, so the two could not be clubbed together.
The Supreme Court disagreed with the CESTAT's approach of treating the two units' processes in isolation. It held that the entire manufacturing process (from grey fabric received by Unit 1, through processing at Unit 2, to the finished product cleared by Unit 1) had to be viewed as one continuous, integrated activity for determining excise liability. Since the final product was cleared by Unit 1 after this cumulative process, the Commissioner's original order fixing liability on Unit 1 was correct, and the CESTAT erred in artificially splitting the manufacturing process. The Court quashed the CESTAT's order, restored the Commissioner's original order, and allowed the excise department's appeal.
For excise/tax liability, courts look at the substance of an integrated manufacturing process as a whole rather than mechanically splitting it between cooperating units merely because different machines or premises are involved: liability follows the entity that clears the finished product from a jointly-conducted process.
