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 Income Tax Department had filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before the Rajasthan High Court against an Income Tax Appellate Tribunal order concerning the respondent company, Gopal Shri Scrips Pvt. Ltd. During the pendency of that appeal, it came to light that the respondent-company's name had been struck off the register of companies and the company stood dissolved under Section 560(5) of the Companies Act, 1956. On this basis, the High Court dismissed the Department's appeal as having become "infructuous," reasoning that there was no longer any surviving party against whom to decide the legal question, though it gave the Department liberty to approach it again if occasion arose.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to treat the appeal as infructuous simply because the company had been struck off the register, because it had overlooked a proviso to Section 560(5) of the Companies Act and the specific provisions of Chapter XV of the Income Tax Act dealing with tax liability in cases of dissolution or discontinuance of business, both of which specifically address how such liabilities are to be pursued even after a company ceases to exist on paper. Since the High Court never actually examined these governing provisions before dismissing the appeal, its order was not legally sustainable. The Supreme Court allowed the Department's appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the matter back to the High Court to decide the original tax appeal afresh on its merits, in light of the relevant Companies Act and Income Tax Act provisions, without being influenced by any of the Supreme Court's own observations, and requested the High Court to decide it within six months given its age.
A company being formally dissolved or struck off the register does not automatically wipe out tax (or other statutory) proceedings against it: specific provisions exist precisely to address liability in such situations, and courts must examine those provisions rather than simply treating the case as having become moot.
