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 New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) was set up by a 1976 Uttar Pradesh government notification under a State Act. Canara Bank, acting as NOIDA's banker, paid NOIDA around Rs. 20.1 crore in interest on fixed deposits but did not deduct tax at source, relying on a notification exempting certain statutory bodies. The Income Tax Department treated the Bank as "in default" for not deducting TDS, but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and then the Allahabad High Court ruled in the Bank's favour, holding NOIDA was the kind of body covered by the TDS exemption; the Revenue (tax department) then appealed to the Supreme Court along with dozens of similar connected appeals.
The core legal question was whether NOIDA qualifies as a "corporation established by or under a Central, State or Provincial Act," which would exempt interest paid to it from TDS under Section 194A. The Supreme Court compared NOIDA's constituting Act with the State Financial Corporations Act and relied on its earlier ruling in a case called Dalco Engineering, concluding that because NOIDA's composition and establishment are directly and specifically provided for by the 1976 Act itself, it counts as a body "established by or under" an Act. On that basis, the Court held the High Court was right, and dismissed the Revenue's appeal along with all the connected tagged appeals raising the identical point.
Whether a government-created body qualifies for a tax exemption as a statutory "corporation" depends on whether its very existence and structure are laid down directly in the Act that created it, not merely on whether it performs public functions; this distinction can make the difference between a bank being liable for tax-deduction defaults or not.
