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 of the respondent's (assessee's) premises in 1997, the Income Tax Department raised a block-period tax demand, which the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) set aside in the assessee's favour. The Revenue's appeal against that ITAT order was dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court. The Revenue then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the High Court's dismissal order gave no real reasons for its conclusion.
The Supreme Court examined the High Court's judgment and found that it merely recited the facts and parties' submissions, then simply declared the issue "answered in favour of the assessee" without any actual discussion or reasoning, and also failed to frame the "substantial question of law" that Section 260A requires before an appeal can be heard and decided on merits. The Court held that every judgment deciding a dispute between parties must record the reasons that led to its conclusion, the conclusion alone is not enough, and that the High Court's order therefore suffered from a jurisdictional defect for failing to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 260A(4) and (5). Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Revenue's appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and sent the case back to the High Court to be decided afresh on its merits, framing the required question(s) of law and giving proper reasons: expressly stating it had not expressed any opinion on the actual tax dispute itself.
A court's judgment is only valid if it gives actual reasons for its decision, not just a bare conclusion, especially in tax appeals, where the law requires the High Court to formally identify the "substantial question of law" before deciding the case; failing to do so can get the judgment set aside regardless of which side appeared to "win."
