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 partnership firm exporting casting materials from Kolkata, had export commission payments disallowed by the Assessing Officer because the tax deducted at source (TDS) on those payments was deposited with the government a few months after the close of the relevant financial year, though before the firm's income-tax return was actually filed. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal both ruled in the firm's favour, and the Calcutta High Court upheld that view, prompting the Revenue to appeal to the Supreme Court along with dozens of similar connected appeals.
The core question was whether a 2010 amendment to Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, which allowed deduction of such expenses so long as TDS was paid any time before the due date for filing the return, should apply retrospectively to an earlier assessment year (2005-06), even though the amendment's own text said it took effect only from 2010-11. The Supreme Court held that the amendment was "curative" in nature, meant to fix an unintended hardship in the original provision rather than create a new benefit, and that curative/clarificatory amendments must be read retrospectively from the date the original provision was inserted. Since the respondent had deposited the TDS before filing its return (in line with the due date under Section 139), it was entitled to the deduction, and the Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals along with all connected appeals.
When a tax amendment is designed to cure an admitted hardship or anomaly in the original law (rather than grant a brand-new concession), courts will generally apply it retrospectively, so taxpayers facing disallowance under an older, harsher version of a provision may still benefit from a later "curative" amendment, even for past assessment years.
