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 dealing in land, entered into memoranda of understanding with M/s Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (SICCL) to acquire, demarcate, and arrange registration of large land parcels for SICCL's real estate projects, earning a margin as the difference between the price paid to landowners and a fixed rate agreed with SICCL. Tax authorities alleged the respondent was actually rendering "Real Estate Agent" services taxable under the Finance Act and, after investigation, the Commissioner of Service Tax raised a demand of over Rs. 10.45 crore plus penalties, invoking the extended five-year limitation period on the ground that the respondent had suppressed facts by not filing returns. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal set aside this demand, and the Commissioner appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the Commissioner's appeals. It held that the respondent's role under the MOUs (purchasing land in its own capacity, bearing the risk of profit or loss on the price differential, and transferring ownership to SICCL) was fundamentally different from that of a real estate agent or consultant who merely facilitates a transaction for a fee/commission on behalf of another party; the respondent's transactions therefore did not fall within the statutory definition of "Real Estate Agent" services under the Finance Act, 1994. On the limitation issue, the Court found that all payments between the respondent and SICCL passed through proper banking channels with no concealment, and the tax department had failed to establish any fraud, collusion, or wilful suppression of facts needed to justify invoking the extended five-year limitation period: mere non-payment of tax, by itself, is not enough.
A business that buys and resells land or assumes the commercial risk of a transaction (profit or loss on price) is not automatically an "agent" for tax purposes merely because it also handles paperwork and formalities for a client; and tax authorities cannot invoke extended limitation periods to reopen old demands without concrete proof of deliberate concealment or fraud, not just a taxpayer's honest failure to pay.
