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 moreThis batch of civil appeals (including Civil Appeal No. 4590 of 2018) arose from the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissing the Income Tax Department's appeals, on the ground that a "supporting manufacturer" (one who supplies goods to an export/trading house rather than exporting directly) should be treated the same as a direct exporter for claiming tax deductions on export profits under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A three-judge bench was constituted after an earlier two-judge referral order doubted whether the precedent being relied on (Baby Marine Exports) actually applied to supporting manufacturers' claims.
The Supreme Court held that Baby Marine Exports dealt with a different question (whether export house premium could be included in business profits) and did not establish that supporting manufacturers must be treated on par with direct exporters. Analysing Section 80HHC's structure, the Court found the deduction scheme for exporters (Section 80HHC(1) read with sub-section (3)) is materially different from the scheme for supporting manufacturers (Section 80HHC(1A) read with sub-section (3A)), with the latter lacking the enhancement provisos available to direct exporters. It therefore overruled the contrary decision in CIT v. Satish Kumar Gupta and allowed the Revenue's appeals (including C.A. No. 4590/2018), setting aside the High Court's judgment. For a separate connected set of appeals (C.A. Nos. 4593-4599 of 2018), the Court set aside the impugned judgments but remanded those specific matters to the Appellate Tribunal to let the respondents show, with evidence, that they also qualified as direct exporters.
A business that merely supplies goods to an export/trading house (a "supporting manufacturer") is not automatically entitled to the same tax deduction benefits as a company that exports directly: the Income Tax Act treats the two differently, and taxpayers must rely on the specific statutory provision that actually applies to their situation rather than assuming parity with a more favourable one.
