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 moreHamdard, the maker of the popular drink "Sharbat Rooh Afza," paid Uttar Pradesh VAT at the concessional 4% rate applicable to "fruit drinks." Tax authorities instead classified the product as an unclassified item taxable at 12.5%, reasoning that under food-safety licensing rules a drink needs at least 25% fruit juice to be labelled a "fruit drink," while Rooh Afza contains only about 10%. The Allahabad High Court upheld this higher tax across multiple years of assessment (2008-2012).
The Supreme Court sided with Hamdard, holding that a food-safety licensing definition cannot be imported wholesale into a tax statute that itself does not prescribe any minimum fruit-content threshold. Applying the "common parlance" and "essential character" tests long used in tax classification, the Court found that although sugar syrup makes up 80% of the product by volume, the fruit juice and related extracts give Rooh Afza its true identity as a fruit-based beverage. It also noted the tax department had produced no market or consumer evidence to justify treating the product as an "unclassified" residuary item, and that several other states already tax the same product as a fruit drink. The appeals were allowed, the higher-tax orders set aside, and a refund of the excess tax directed.
When goods can reasonably fit a specific tax entry, authorities cannot fall back on the catch-all "residuary" category without proving otherwise: the burden is on the tax department, not the taxpayer, and unrelated regulatory definitions (like food-labelling rules) don't automatically control tax classification.
