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 Jaipur resident, won Rs. 20 lakhs in a Sikkim State Lottery bumper draw in 1986 and had already paid income tax on it at source under the Sikkim State Income Tax Rules. The Income Tax Department sought to also tax this lottery income under the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, and a dispute also arose over whether a deduction claimed under Section 80TT should be computed on the gross or net lottery amount. The Rajasthan High Court had ruled against the appellant-assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
The Supreme Court held that under Article 371F(k) of the Constitution, a special constitutional provision for Sikkim, only Sikkim's own income tax regulations applied to this lottery income for the relevant period, and there was no express statutory provision permitting the same income to be taxed again under the Indian Income Tax Act. Relying on the general principle that double taxation is not permitted unless the legislature expressly authorizes it, and that any doubt in a taxing statute should be resolved in favour of the taxpayer, the Court held the lottery income could not be taxed a second time under the IT Act. Having decided the income was not taxable at all under the IT Act, the Court held the separate dispute over gross-vs-net computation under Section 80TT had become academic. The appeal was allowed.
A taxpayer cannot be taxed twice on the same income unless a law expressly says so, and ambiguity in tax statutes is resolved in the taxpayer's favour: a principle of particular relevance where special constitutional arrangements (like Sikkim's) carve out a separate tax regime.
