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 moreTechSpan India, a software export company claiming a deduction under Section 10A of the Income Tax Act, had its assessment for 2001-02 completed after a detailed inquiry into how it allocated common expenses between its software and HR businesses. Years later, the Assessing Officer issued a notice to reopen the assessment, claiming the Section 10A deduction had been allowed in excess. The Delhi High Court quashed both the reopening notice and the reassessment order, holding it was based on a mere change of opinion, and the Revenue appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that Section 147 gives the tax department the power to reassess income that has escaped assessment, but not the power to "review" an assessment merely because the officer later takes a different view of facts already considered earlier: that would turn reassessment into an impermissible review. Relying on its earlier ruling in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kelvinator of India, the Court found that the very same question, how common expenses should be allocated for the Section 10A deduction, had already been scrutinized during the original assessment, so the later notice was based on nothing but a change of opinion, not any new "tangible material." The Court therefore agreed with the High Court and dismissed the Revenue's appeal, with no order as to costs.
Tax authorities cannot reopen an already-completed assessment simply because they have had second thoughts about facts they already examined the first time around: reassessment requires genuinely new information, not a mere change of opinion on old facts.
