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 moreThe appellant imported cable-TV "Head End" equipment (multiplexer satellite receivers, test equipment, etc.) at Delhi and Mumbai, declaring the various components separately under different customs tariff headings and at a lower aggregate value. A later investigation revealed that the equipment, taken together, formed a single functional unit, that embedded software and foreign technical/installation services had not been declared, and that the purchase order had been altered from an FOB to a CIF basis, all of which understated the customs value. The Department issued a show-cause notice alleging suppression of value and proposed re-determining the value upward (from about Rs. 1.03 crore to about Rs. 1.72 crore); the resulting demand was upheld by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, leading to this statutory appeal under Section 130E of the Customs Act.
The Supreme Court held that where multiple imported components together constitute one apparatus performing a single defined function (per Note 4 to Section XVI of the Customs Tariff), they must be classified and valued as that single unit rather than as separately declared items. It found that embedded software, loaded into the equipment before shipment, was part of the imported goods itself (not a "post-importation activity" like the technical-know-how fees in the precedents the appellant relied on), so its value was rightly included in the assessable value under the applicable Customs Valuation Rules. Finding no infirmity in the Tribunal's reasoning or in the Department's invocation of Note 4, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Tribunal's order, with no order as to costs.
Importers cannot avoid customs duty by artificially splitting a single integrated product into separately invoiced components or by hiding the value of embedded software/pre-shipment services: if the components function together as one device, customs authorities are entitled to value and tax it as a single unit.
