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 is the lead matter in a single judgment that jointly decided three connected civil appeals: 15605-15606/2017 (this case), 15607/2017 (Tirath Ram Ahuja), and 15608/2017 (Jaycon Infrastructure). The Delhi government's Commissioner of Trade and Taxes challenged a Delhi High Court order that quashed a show-cause notice issued to the assessee, Ahluwalia Contracts, under the Delhi Tax Compliance Achievement Scheme, 2013 (an amnesty scheme for VAT dues). The notice, issued under Clause 8 of the Scheme to reopen a declaration the assessee had already settled, was challenged as issued by an Additional Commissioner who was not the "Commissioner" empowered by Clause 8 to reopen such matters, and the High Court agreed, also holding any fresh notice would now be time-barred.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the Additional Commissioner (the Designated Authority under the Scheme) lacked jurisdiction to issue the Clause-8 show-cause notice, since that power under the Scheme was reserved for the Commissioner alone and had not been validly delegated by the Government Order the Revenue relied on. But, applying the principle from Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. ITO that a litigant cannot profit from an advantage gained purely by withholding a jurisdictional objection until limitation has run, the Court found the assessee's conduct, raising the jurisdiction point only in its writ petition, after the one-year Clause 8(3) limitation period had expired, despite having had the opportunity to raise it earlier, was not entirely bona fide. It therefore set aside the High Court's order and permitted the Revenue to issue a fresh, properly authorized notice under Clause 8 if it chose to.
Even where a government officer genuinely lacked the authority to issue a particular notice, a taxpayer who stays silent about that defect until the limitation clock has run out, rather than raising it promptly, may not be allowed to use that delay to escape the proceeding altogether; courts can permit the authority to correct the defect and start afresh.
