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 moreK. Krishnamurthy had helped procure land for a housing society and, following a search and seizure operation at his premises in 2010, admitted undisclosed income of about Rs. 2.27 crore. He also separately declared roughly Rs. 2.5 crore during the later assessment proceedings, relating to land deals for two other individuals, which had not been mentioned during the search itself. The tax department imposed a 10% penalty under Section 271AAA on his entire assessed income of about Rs. 4.78 crore, and the Karnataka High Court upheld the penalty. He appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the penalty was excessive and wrongly based.
The Supreme Court held that Section 271AAA penalty is not automatic. It applies only if the assessee fails to meet three specific conditions (admitting undisclosed income during the search, explaining how it arose, and paying tax with interest). Since Krishnamurthy had admitted the Rs. 2.27 crore during the search itself and later paid the tax and interest (albeit late), no penalty was leviable on that portion. However, the Rs. 2.49 crore relating to the two other individuals' land deals was disclosed only later during assessment, not during the search, so it did not qualify for the exemption and penalty at 10% was rightly leviable on that amount alone.
A search-related tax penalty depends on exactly what was admitted during the search itself, not on the total income eventually assessed: income disclosed voluntarily and promptly at the time of search, with tax duly paid, can escape penalty even if paid with some delay, while amounts revealed only later during assessment remain fully penalizable.
