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 dispute traces back to Entry Tax demanded from Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) on crude oil entering Uttar Pradesh, a levy that had a long and winding litigation history involving multiple rounds before the Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court over whether the tax itself was constitutionally valid. After the tax liability itself was eventually settled, a fresh dispute arose over whether the State could additionally charge interest on the Entry Tax, and whether IOC could even raise this question given earlier proceedings. The Allahabad High Court dismissed IOC's writ petition on a preliminary objection, holding the interest issue was barred by res judicata (i.e., already decided or that should have been raised earlier), without examining the interest question on its merits. IOC appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was wrong to throw out IOC's challenge on res judicata grounds, since the specific plea on interest had never been given a chance to be heard on its merits in the earlier rounds of litigation. On the substantive legal question, the Court held that the U.P. Entry Tax Act, 2007 does contain a valid substantive legal basis for charging interest on delayed Entry Tax (incorporating interest provisions from the U.P. VAT Act), rejecting IOC's argument that no such basis existed. However, the Court did not finally quantify or determine IOC's actual interest liability: it set aside the High Court's judgment, revived the writ petitions, and sent the matter back to the High Court to examine the remaining factual and other issues (such as the effect of Entry Tax amounts already held in a separate interest-bearing account under earlier Supreme Court orders).
A procedural technicality like "res judicata" cannot be used to shut out a legitimate legal question that was never actually argued or decided earlier; and when a tax statute incorporates another law's provisions "mutatis mutandis," courts will treat even machinery-style provisions (like interest) as valid substantive authority if that was the legislature's intent.
