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 respondent, a registered charitable trust running an engineering college, had its Section 12AA tax-exemption registration cancelled by the Income Tax Commissioner after a survey revealed an allegedly bogus donation of Rs. 37 lakh that the Department suspected was really the trust's own unaccounted cash routed back to it through a sham donor. On appeal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal found the trust had not been given a chance to cross-examine the donor's representative and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner, but the Calcutta High Court went further and quashed the cancellation entirely, reasoning that a single bogus donation could not prove the trust's overall activities were not genuine.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court's reasoning, that one bogus donation could not establish that a trust's activities were not genuine, was erroneous and ran contrary to the plain language of Section 12AA(3) of the Income Tax Act, especially given the serious allegations of money laundering spanning several years. The Court found the High Court had wrongly entertained and allowed an appeal against what was merely a remand order, short-circuiting the proper process of the Commissioner reconsidering the matter after giving the trust a fair opportunity (including cross-examination). It therefore set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeal, but expressly clarified it was not expressing any view on the merits: the Commissioner was directed to decide the cancellation question afresh, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by the Tribunal, High Court, or the Supreme Court itself.
A single disputed or allegedly fraudulent transaction is not, by itself, automatically a complete answer either way in deciding whether a charitable trust's overall activities are genuine: tax authorities must be allowed to examine the full facts (with the taxpayer given a fair hearing, including cross-examination rights) rather than having the issue short-circuited on appeal.
