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, a Small Scale Industrial Unit making aerated water under the "Kalimark" brand, had claimed an excise duty exemption meant for small manufacturers. The Excise Department denied the exemption on the ground that "Kalimark" was actually a third party's brand name, which would disqualify the appellant from the SSI exemption under the relevant notification. This stance had been upheld by the Tribunal (CESTAT). This judgment disposes of C.A. No. 3594 of 2005 together with several connected appeals (C.A. 3611/2005 and C.A. 4387-4392/2005) raising the identical issue.
The Supreme Court found that the Tribunal had misread the family's 1993 "Deed of Mutual Agreement," which in fact preserved and vested the "Kalimark" trade name and mark jointly in all the family members (including the appellant) within their respective marketing territories, rather than transferring exclusive ownership to a single family member. Since the appellant was legally a co-owner/user of its own brand name and not using a genuine "third party's" mark, the exemption-denial ground did not hold up. The Court found the case squarely covered by its recent ruling in CCE, Hyderabad-IV vs. Stangen Immuno Diagnostics (19.3.2015), and allowed all the connected appeals, including this one.
An SSI excise exemption cannot be denied merely because a brand name is shared within an extended family or business group: if a family settlement or agreement shows the appellant genuinely co-owns or is licensed to use that mark, it is not "another person's brand name" for exemption purposes.
