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 moreContainer Corporation of India (CONCOR), a government company running Inland Container Depots (ICDs) and Container Freight Stations, claimed a tax deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act for profits earned from its ICDs for assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06. The Assessing Officer and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal denied the deduction for ICD profits, but the Delhi High Court reversed this and allowed the deduction. The Revenue (Income Tax Department) appealed to the Supreme Court, along with roughly 50 connected appeals raising the identical question.
The core question was whether ICDs qualify as an "infrastructure facility" (specifically, an "inland port") entitled to the Section 80-IA tax deduction. The Court held that although ICDs are not literally "ports" in the maritime sense, the nature of work performed there, customs clearance and cargo handling akin to port operations, justified treating them as "inland ports" within the meaning of the Explanation to Section 80-IA(4). The Court also rejected the Revenue's argument that a 1998 CBDT notification recognising ICDs as infrastructure facilities lost effect after the CBDT's notifying power was withdrawn in 2001, holding that the withdrawal of power did not retrospectively undo notifications validly issued earlier. The Delhi High Court's judgment was upheld and the Revenue's appeal, along with all connected appeals, was dismissed.
A tax benefit validly granted under a government notification continues to apply for its full statutory period even if the government's power to issue such notifications is later withdrawn by amendment, unless the amending law expressly says otherwise.
