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 moreMaxopp Investment Ltd. and several other companies had borrowed money and used part of it to buy shares in group/related companies, mainly to gain or retain controlling interest in those companies rather than purely to earn dividends. Separately, some banks (such as State Bank of Patiala) held shares and securities as "stock-in-trade" (i.e., as part of their regular trading business) rather than as long-term investments. In both situations, the companies/banks also incidentally received dividend income, which is exempt from income tax, and they claimed full deduction of their interest expenditure without reducing it for the portion connected to this tax-free dividend income. The tax department disallowed part of that interest expenditure under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, which bars deducting expenses linked to tax-exempt income, leading to conflicting rulings by the Delhi High Court (against the assessees) and the Punjab & Haryana High Court (in favour of the assessee bank).
The Supreme Court held that the "dominant purpose" test (i.e., whether the main intention behind buying the shares was control rather than earning dividend) is not the correct test for Section 14A where shares are held as capital investments, even if shares were bought to gain controlling interest, any dividend earned is still exempt income, and the expenditure must be apportioned between taxable and exempt income under the "theory of apportionment." On this basis, the Court dismissed the appeals of Maxopp Investment Ltd. and similar assessees who held shares as investments for control. However, where shares are held as stock-in-trade (as with banks trading in securities), the position differs: the primary business purpose is trading/profit, and apportionment under Section 14A still applies but must be assessed on the specific facts, and the Assessing Officer must record proper satisfaction before invoking disallowance. The Court also confirmed that Rule 8D (the formula for computing disallowance) applies only prospectively (not before Assessment Year 2008-09), so Revenue's appeals for earlier years failed on that separate ground. The appeals were disposed of in batch as listed in the final summary (para 44), with most assessee and Revenue appeals dismissed and one Revenue appeal allowed.
If a business earns any tax-exempt income (like dividends) incidental to its main activities, even if that income was not the primary goal of an investment, it cannot claim full deduction for expenses (like loan interest) connected to earning that income; such expenses must be proportionately reduced under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act.
