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 was the lead matter in a consolidated batch of appeals raising a common question: whether receipts collected by co-operative societies from their members, such as non-occupancy charges, transfer charges and common-amenity-fund charges, are exempt from income tax under the "doctrine of mutuality" (which generally exempts money collected and spent within a closed group of contributors who are also the beneficiaries). The tax authorities had held that charges exceeding the limit prescribed by a 2001 Maharashtra Government notification under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 fell outside mutuality and were taxable, while the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that notification applied only to co-operative housing societies, not to a "premises society" (non-residential premises) like the respondent, and also held that transfer fees paid by an incoming (non-member) transferee were taxable since the payer was not yet a member. The High Court had partly sided with the assessee-society.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court and Tribunal that the 2001 notification's ceiling on non-occupancy/service charges applies only to co-operative housing societies and has no application to a premises society consisting of non-residential premises, so there was no basis to tax the society's receipts purely for exceeding that notification's limit. The Court distinguished contrary authority (the Kumbakonam and Chelmsford Club lines of cases) on facts, noting mutuality requires a complete identity between those who contribute to a common fund and those who benefit from it, which existed here. On the specific point of transfer fees and premium amounts, the Court held that the rate of premium chargeable for transferring a flat/premises and associated share rights must be determined by the society's General Body at a General Meeting. On this basis, the Court dismissed all the Revenue's appeals (including this one) and allowed the one appeal filed by an assessee-society (Civil Appeal No. 1180 of 2015) in terms of the signed judgment.
The doctrine of mutuality in tax law turns on a genuine, complete identity between contributors and beneficiaries of a common fund: a co-operative society's internal charges collected from and spent only among its own members are generally exempt from income tax, and regulatory ceilings meant for housing societies cannot automatically be extended to other kinds of co-operative societies (such as non-residential premises societies).
