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 moreT. Jayachandran was a stockbroker registered with the Madras Stock Exchange and an approved broker for the Indian Bank. During assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94, he purchased securities on the Bank's behalf, and a large sum (over Rs. 14.7 crore) was routed through him, which the Income Tax Department treated as his personal taxable income. The Madras High Court had ruled in his favour, relying on findings from parallel CBI criminal proceedings that this money was only handled by him as a broker on the Bank's instructions, to be passed on as additional interest to public sector undertakings, not retained as his own earnings.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reliance on the criminal court's factual findings, holding that such findings, based on evidence including bank officials' testimony and the Bank's own correspondence, could properly be considered to establish the true relationship between the broker and the Bank. It found that the money had passed through Jayachandran purely as a conduit: the price of securities was fixed by the Bank, the differential amount was used to arrange demand drafts for additional interest payable to PSUs, and he ultimately handed the money back to the Bank. Since what counts for taxability is income that genuinely accrues to a person, and this amount never became his to keep, the Court held he held it only in trust and it could not be taxed as his income. The main appeal and all fourteen connected appeals were accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Money that merely passes through someone's hands as an intermediary or trustee, never belonging to them beneficially, is not their taxable income, even if it is formally received in their name; what matters for tax purposes is whether income has genuinely and beneficially accrued to the person, not just physical receipt.
