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 moreGVK Industries, a company setting up a gas-based power project in Andhra Pradesh, engaged a Swiss non-resident company (NRC) as a financial consultant to help structure financing and loan arrangements, agreeing to pay the NRC a "success fee" of 0.75% of the total debt financing. Before paying the fee abroad, GVK sought a "No Objection Certificate" from the Income Tax Department to remit the amount without deducting tax at source, which was refused on the ground that the fee qualified as "fee for technical services" taxable in India; this was upheld by the High Court.
The Supreme Court examined whether the NRC's financial-structuring and loan-syndication services amounted to "consultancy services" for tax purposes, relying on dictionary definitions and prior rulings (including an Authority for Advance Rulings decision and a Delhi High Court judgment) to conclude that consultancy services are advisory services requiring human expertise, which need not themselves be "technical" in a narrow engineering sense. The Court held that the NRC's work, using its specialised skill and knowledge to prepare financing schemes and negotiate loan terms, squarely fell within "consultancy service" and therefore the fee paid was taxable as "fee for technical services" under the Income Tax Act, meaning tax ought to have been deducted at source before remittance; the grant of a No Objection Certificate without such deduction was therefore not legally permissible. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's judgment, with no order as to costs.
When an Indian company pays a foreign consultant for advisory/financial-structuring services, even if not narrowly "technical" or engineering-type work, that payment can still count as a "fee for technical services" under Indian tax law, triggering an obligation to deduct tax at source before the money is sent abroad.
